There are two ways, but there’s going to be a hearing of some sort for either one. First, a motion to dismiss. This is for truly baseless claims (and therefore is pretty rare) It assumes all the facts in the complaint are true, but that even then there is no cause of action. For example, I sue you because I allege you wore a red shirt just to piss me off. The judge can say, “even if that’s true, there’s no lawsuit here. Case dismissed.” To use a less extreme example, say I sue the city of Seattle for not providing adequate lighting at a crosswalk and my client was injured with a car hit him. The city might say they have no duty to provide adequate lighting at intersections like this, so even if my allegations are true, case dismissed.
The second way, which occurs later, is a motion for summary judgment (often abused by defendants and courts, but that’s a story for another day). Summary judgment motions basically say “yes, you have a valid legal argument, but you don’t have sufficient facts to even get to a jury.” Using my crosswalk example, perhaps the city agrees they have a duty to provide adequate lighting in crosswalks, but tell the judge the light was adequate and plaintiff has no admissible evidence to the contrary. While that normally would be a question for the jury, when all the evidence (even when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff) does not allow a reasonable juror to find for the plaintiff, the judge will enter judgment for the plaintiff.
You’re not making it up entirely. It is true that you’re entitled to your day in court, if you want to accuse another company of poaching your employees or something. The difference here is that, pending that day in court and pending any proof of anything, they convinced a judge to actually grant them what they would hypothetically be entitled to if they won.
There’s a huge difference between being allowed to take something to trial to prove your case, on the one hand (which typically takes a super long time), and being granted an immediate and very restrictive form of relief by the court, just on your say so.
Let’s say I think I’m being defamed on this board. If I go to a court and file that complaint, it would be improper for a court to just tell me to fuck off. I’m allowed to present my evidence at trial, and show how and why I’ve been harmed, and maybe I win that case and eventually get a verdict and some damages. But then imagine that I said to the judge, on the day that I filed, “yeah man they’re still harming me, you’ve gotta shut down the website entirely until we figure this out,” and the court actually did that.
So…what you’re saying is that, if the judge had performed up to the usual standards of his profession, he would have summarily dismissed this plea for injunction? And that, if he had done that, this would not have become a national story and seriously damaged ThedaCare’s reputation and standing in the community?
In other words, ThedaCare has been harmed by judicial malpractice and is deserving of redress! I sense a new lawsuit coming on…
I wrote a couple of posts saying it was possible for ThedaCare to have at least alleged facts that could justify getting a temporary injunction, but I don’t see it there either. Maybe they got that weekend injunction because of the whole “patients will die” bit, and there just wasn’t enough time to really look at it until Monday. But that memorandum is all about the harm, and is pretty clear that even they don’t really think that it’s reasonably likely for them to win on the merits, which is part of the requirements for the temporary injunction.
That last “plaintiff” should be “defendant.” I know you know that – just clarifying for other readers. If no reasonable juror could find for the plaintiff, summary judgment is entered for the defendant.
Having now read the memorandum of law in support (linked upthread), I must agree. There’s no decent allegation of actual tortious interference, and I think the judge would have been on solid ground to deny this at the temporary stage. But a judge who is elected can probably imagine the headlines like
Then again, even the argument in support seems to concede that there is no underlying tort claim, and that this was a Hail Mary
(Emphasis in original)
(And while I hear those of you who are saying the lawyers should be sanctioned, I feel for the lowly associate who was trying to put this together, and was likely pulling her hair out going “this is it?!” But when your boss brings you a turd, you polish it)
Only for a weekend until a full presentation could be made.
That sort of harm is not irreparable, and on the other side of the balance is the freedom of this Board to operate and promote speech. At the end of the day, you will be fully compensated for your loss.
Again, I didn’t read the original pleading, but if it is “people will die” then no amount of money can fix that. Each case rests on its own facts.
Well, I think maybe you should read the pleading, then.
While I don’t have any sympathy for the poor associates in particular, I think the behavior of the lawyers is a little bit beside the point. This was maybe in the bottom 1% of petitions for special relief, but it wasn’t in the bottom .00001% of them. People ask for dumb things they don’t deserve all the time. The court’s job is to say “that’s dumb and you don’t deserve it.”
There was nothing to differentiate this case from pretty much any hospital anywhere when employees quit. Every healthcare system that ever lost a handful of employees could baldly aver that not having people in those positions would be bad for patients, and thus bad for the public interest, right? For that matter, basically any public service agency could do the same. Our bus drivers are leaving, there’s a pandemic, people won’t be able to get to the hospital without buses. People will die, and no amount of money can fix that! I mean, except for the money we could pay our employees to stay here, and will not pay. But once they’re dead, they’re beastly dead, Your Honor.
It just is not okay for a judge to see those facts and entertain the idea that the defendant should be enjoined from paying those people more money to do the same jobs, after those people gave two weeks notice. Judges are not exactly shy about demanding an explanation for why their time is being wasted. Once Thedacare did not have a compelling answer to the question “how is this not simply your own failure to manage your staffing levels,” that had to be the end of it.
If Thedacare wanted to pay attorneys to put together a Hail Mary argument, sure, okay, take your best shot. But a judge cannot just grant extraordinary relief on the grounds that “it’s just for the weekend,” and try thereby to strongarm a settlement.
Or imagine this: “I think my employer is screwing me on my hours and work conditions, so I quit showing up to work. Please your honor, don’t let them fire me or dock my pay until we can resolve the case., my daughter needs insulin and might die”
The management apologists on this thread would of course have no problem saying “tough titty” to the employee’s cash flow problems, but somehow management is owed automatic deference and consideration when the shoe is on the other foot.
This includes nobody. As seen above, the employees were only prevented from working today and are being fully compensated for missing today’s shift because of court. I’m missing the outrage, or anyone saying that we should all submit to corporate masters. The matter was hospital care. The judge took a modest action (one weekend, and only requiring on call from Ascension, no breach of contract) on the chance that people might die.
Let’s take it this way. If you went into a judge’s office and asked for a single weekend because horrible things might happen, would you want the judge to listen and give you the benefit of the doubt, or do a full analysis, assuming all the way that you are simply full of shit? These are the things that TROs are for. And the judge likely recognized the likely bullshit-ed-ness (new word) of the claim because he scheduled a hearing Monday.
Also, do you think ThedaCare agreed to pay the employees out of generosity? Or perhaps the judge told them in his office that they had better goddamn well do so unless they want to feel his further wrath?
The judge didn’t get to ask that question until it there was a hearing.
And I’m not sure anyone has been a management apologist. Can you be specific?
For myself, I was responding to people who didn’t know how the legal system works, or who could not imagine any possible claim that could even be alleged to justify the injunction. I was in no way saying ThedaCare could prove such a claim.
Not that this is a reason it didn’t happen, but it seems really stupid to me if you’re committing fraud to piss off the people who might know about it, while publicizing a bunch of documents that could give someone enough dots to connect. If I were committing fraud I would use this kind of opportunity to get out while the gettin’s good, which might be why I wouldn’t commit fraud in the first place.
But I mean we already know these guys were dumb enough to broadcast to the world that they’re vindictive pricks to the people who work for them so who knows.
BTW this is a bit off topic but I get irrationally annoyed at these big public gofundme’s that get thousands of dollars. You have no idea where the money is actually going to go and there is very likely an actual organization that is going to do a better job of combating the thing you’re fighting against if you do a minute of research.
Wanting the judge to give the benefit of the doubt in a close case is one thing- but after reading Theda’s memorandum of law in support of the injunction, it isn’t even close. And IMO it was 100% written so as to do what I call “lying by telling the truth”. Paragraph 22 and 23 are written so as to give the impression that the staff were going to resign on 1/21/21.
But what do these sentences mean
On December 21, 2021, ThedaCare learned that four members of its eleven member IRC team intended to resign …
On December 29, 2021, ThedaCare learned that two nurses intended to resign their employment with ThedaCare …
On January 7, 2022, ThedaCare learned that one additional nurse intended to resign their employment
if not that those employees submitted their resignations on those dates, meaning that ThedaCare had a month’s notice regarding the first four employees. Sure, in theory ThedaCare could have been referring to having heard of the employees’ intentions through the rumor mill - but it doesn’t make sense for the memo to be that vague if that’s what happened. In fact, if it was through rumors that ThedaCare “learned” of their intentions on those dates, I wouldn’t have expected the dates to be mentioned at all. Then we have
ThedaCare learned that the seven departing IRC team members would collectively resign on January 21, 2022 and start with Ascension on January 24, 2022.
which is an attempt to give the impression that they all walked in on January 21 and resigned effective immediately. But if that’s what happened, ThedaCare would have explicitly said that in the memo. I am 100% certain that they all submitted their resignations on the earlier mentioned dates and the resignations were effective January 21
I still can’t figure out what theory this injunction was based on - ThedaCare didn’t/couldn’t replace its at-will employees with a month’s notice doesn’t really seem to be a basis to me. Does that mean a police officer/firefighter/paramedic can’t quit their job and get a job elsewhere because someone “might” die? And that’s leaving aside all the reasons that this was a crisis of ThedaCare’s own making.
I think, and don’t hold me to this, they’re referring to @k9bfriender back in post 85 and elsewhere who attempted to defend Thedacare’s position, in that they may not (unlikely) have the additional funds to match Ascension’s offer, and to protect their patients. As information has come out, I do NOT think this is a valid defense, but it could have been made in good faith.
I do think # 85 went too far in judging Ascension and the former employees to be operating in bad faith, and the results of the request for the 90 injunction seems to favor their arguments as well, ie Thedacare was NOT acting in good faith to their employees or acting on behalf of their patients as anything resembling a primary goal.
The nonsensical nature of the injunction has sort of been beaten to death at this point, but an injunction that was only intended to last until today wouldn’t really do anything. I mean it clearly isn’t a threat to anything to have any of those people not available to work at ThedaCare because they didn’t do that this weekend and they were sitting in court today. So either it was intended for a time period so short it wouldn’t have mattered or it was intended for a longer time period at which point the idea of maintaining the status quo would’ve been untenable. They could have gone with business as usual until initial hearings where somewhat of a case can be made and then if the likelihood/severity calculation of a legitimate legal harm to ThedaCare is enough that it warrants an injunction, the workers can be pulled out of their jobs. There’s nothing magical about the moment they start Ascension that a later injunction couldn’t have been issued.
I still think it’s completely fair to second guess the injunction.
If you read all the documents, all but one of the “ThedaCare Seven” gave their two weeks notice at the end of December. While they all got their offers from Ascension at slightly different times, they all got the message that ThedaCare would not be making a counteroffer at the same time, and that’s when they resigned.
So their last day was January 14. However, ThedaCare refused to process their resignations and kept them listed in their system as employees. I believe they may have done this to maintain the staffing requirements to keep their Level II Trauma Center certification.
And the reason they started screaming on Friday was that once these people started working somewhere else, ThedaCare couldn’t continue maintain they were still employed by them without getting caught.
So they really were lying, and they’ve been playing fast and loose with their certifications. It’s an epic trainwreck for ThedaCare.