JORGE A. SOLIS, United States District Judge
Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment by Adding Post-Judgment Interest, entering Permanent Injunction and Incorporated Brief, with response and reply thereto, filed September 6, 2002. After a thorough review of the evidence, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, for the reasons set forth below, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment by Adding Post-Judgment Interest, entering Permanent Injunction should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2002, the jury returned a verdict against Defendant in favor of Plaintiff and Intervenor for retaliation awarding $30,000 in compensatory damages, and $125,000 in punitive damages. On August 28, 2002, the Court issued a final judgment in accordance with the jury verdict. On September 6, 2002, Plaintiff moved to amend the prior judgment by adding post-judgment interest to accrue at the prescribed legal rate of 1.81% per annum and to enter a permanent injunction. On September 9, 2002, the Court vacated the Final Judgment issued on August 28, 2002 to address the issue of the requested permanent injunction. Defendant filed a response to the EEOC's Motion to Amend and the EEOC filed a reply.
Because Defendant is unopposed to Plaintiffs request regarding post-judgment interest, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request to amend the prior judgment by adding post-judgment interest to accrue at the prescribed legal rate of 1.81% per annum. Plaintiff moved the Court to enter a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant form future violations of the non-retaliations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"). The Court now considers Plaintiff's motion for permanent injunction against Defendant.
DISCUSSION
In addition to its power to hear a case, the Court also has the power to grant injunctive relief. The purpose of an injunction is to prevent future violations. United States v. W T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 (1953). The EEOC seeks and claims it is entitled to injunctive relief. The EEOC's primary authority states that absent clear and convincing proof that there is no reasonable probability of further non-compliance with the law, a grant of injunctive relief is mandatory. James v. Stockham Valves Fittings Co., 559 F.2d 310, 354 (5th Cir. 1977).
In this case, the jury found that Defendant terminated Intervenor, Kimberly Hubbard, in retaliation for filing an EEOC charge. The jury further found that Defendant acted with malice or in reckless indifference to Hubbard's federally protected rights. The evidence introduced at trial showed that the Defendant not only violated the law but refused to cooperate with the federal agency authorized to investigate allegations of discrimination. The manager who terminated Hubbard is not only still employed by Defendant, but has been promoted to the position of General Manager of both Cowboys Red River and Cowboys Arlington. The Court finds that Defendant has not provided any clear and convincing evidence, as required under Stockham, that there is no reasonable probability of further non-compliance with the law. Thus, the Court thereby GRANTS injunctive relief. Plaintiff moved the Court to enter a permanent injunction. The Court is of the opinion that a permanent injunction is not necessary in this case, but a three year injunction from the date of this order is appropriate. Although the evidence indicates that Defendants acted indifferently with respect to Plaintiff's rights under Title VII, Defendants correctly point out that this case involves one incident with a single employee. No evidence has been presented to the Court indicating a common practice or pattern by Defendants of violating employee rights. Accordingly, while the Court GRANTS injunctive relief for three years from the date of this order, Plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction is DENIED. The contents of the injunction and the amended final judgment are separately entered. The Amended Final Judgment will reflect the statutory cap on damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1981(a).
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the evidence, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, for the reasons set forth above, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment by Adding Post-Judgment Interest, entering Permanent Injunction and Incorporated Brief should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.