Protective order bans company owner from going within 500 feet of workplace of woman he dated
A Texas court found that it could reasonably infer that a chief executive officer knowingly directed his employees to engage in conduct justifying the issuance of a final protective order in favor of a woman whom he was dating.
The woman – who resided in Houston, Harris County, Texas – applied for a protective order against the man that she was dating. She alleged that he:
- was charged with and convicted of assault involving family violence in Fort Bend County in August 2011, February 2016, and March 2016
- acknowledged that he was following her
- said that he would keep chasing her until his death
- owned a company that investigated people
- had employees who followed and took photographs of whomever he commanded them to investigate
Between January and May 2022, the applicant allegedly experienced over 30 incidents where she encountered the respondent’s employees in their company cars while she was driving or stuck in traffic. According to her, the employees would pull up beside or behind her, would look into her vehicle, and would wave. They also showed up at her 30-year-old son’s home, she said.
The respondent acknowledged that he had been running a security business called Nationwide Investigations and Security (NIS) for around 24 years. The business had approximately 300 employees who drove about 20 cars, marked with the company name on both sides, around Harris County. Only five of the cars operated in Houston, he testified.
But the respondent denied ordering the NIS employees to harass the applicant. According to the respondent, these employees were security guards who provided services for several accounts around Houston and who conducted investigations, but not in the city.
The trial court found that the respondent had committed family violence and was likely to commit such violence in the future. It issued a final protective order, effective for 10 years, which prohibited the respondent from:
- committing family violence against the applicant
- communicating with her
- threatening her
- going within 500 feet of her residence, her place of employment or business, or any location that she frequently visited
- subjecting her to conduct reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, or torment her
- using his investigation licenses to access her confidential or financial information
- allowing NIS or Hollimon Transportation, another company that he owned, to access her personal or financial information
- possessing a firearm or ammunition
Read more: California company seeks workplace violence restraining order after employees speak up
The protective order also suspended the respondent’s firearm license.
The respondent took the case to the appellate court. He argued that there was not enough evidence to support the issuance of the protective order.
Protective order upheld
In the case of Allen Gerard Hollimon v. Valencia Lana Williams, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas mostly affirmed the order of the trial court. The appellate court modified the protective order by omitting the finding that the respondent committed family violence and was likely to commit family violence in the future.
Some evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the respondent knowingly made the applicant feel harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended, the appellate court said. It rejected the respondent’s argument that the applicant never saw him and only encountered the NIS employees driving company cars.
As the CEO or owner of NIS, the respondent had the right to control its employees’ activities while they were at work, the appellate court determined.
The appellate court found that it could reasonably infer from the evidence that the respondent knowingly directed his employees to engage in the allegedly harassing and annoying conduct. Specifically, the appellate court considered the evidence of the frequency of the encounters between the applicant and the NIS employees together with the respondent’s testimony suggesting that relatively few company cars operated in Houston.
