ThedaCare argues in it’s pleadings that “a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits” is the WI standard. Further the irreparability of harm is a strong factor in the calculus as well.
Curt Flood lost.
I’m very curious as to what the judge will do with regards to the lawsuit itself. I wonder if he’ll actually allow it to move forward. I read the complaint again, and I just can’t see any merit there.
What is the “reasonable likelihood of success” in at at-will state? I understand tortious interference with contract, but if an employee can quit on a moment’s notice, how is it tortious interference if another employer says, “We’ll hire you at a better wage?”
From my perspective, the only legally actionable thingI saw in that claim was an allegation of tortious interference.
And I don’t think Theda Care’s lawyers were doing their client any favour by repeatedly saying that Ascension was “poaching” Theda Care’s employees. “Poaching” refers to ducks, and geese, and fish. But I guess Theda Care equates it’s peons to animals.
It’s been called poaching since forever. Beats all hell out of a related term, headhunting.
Maybe informally, but in a legal pleading, my reaction is “So you own these creatures, do you?”
That is what made me think the judge was probably wrong to issue the temporary injunction in the first place. I thought if they alleged a claim relating to Ascension being out to harm ThedaCare, and could find an appropriate legal vehicle to shoehorn it into, I would not blame the judge for wanting to pause the status quo and hold a hearing on Monday.
But in the memorandum and the complaint, all I see is tortious interference with contract, but no allegation of any contract term, or how making an offer of employment interfered with any contract.
It’s always funny to me that corporate speak is either the most bland incomprehensible garbage on earth, or it’s something like “headhunting” or “vulturing”.
Did you read Ascensions’ brief (linked by @ctnguy above) against the TRO? I would be interested in your and other attorneys’ takes on it.
It goes through and demonstrates (at least to this non-attorney’s eyes) how ThedaCare would not likely be able to succeed.
It also addresses the question of harm and that sufficient remedies were available to ThedaCare already, just at a higher cost.
That’s what I appreciates about you, DeadTreasSecretaries
He lost, but MLB players won because, no pun intended, he opened the flood gates that lead to the eventual decision that allowed players to become free agents. Someone had to be the first, or it never would have happened, that’s why many give him the credit for making it all happen.
Oh is that what you appreciate about me?
Let’s take about twenty percent off there.
The irreparable harm was self inflicted. If there’s any employee pay loss they should foot the bill.
I would guess that the judge saw that seven ThedaCare employees were all resigning on the same day and all were going to work for Ascension and that was the hook, the plausible fact in the pleading, that could possibly make out a claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy that was just barely enough to buy them a weekend. And it all worked out, the right decision was made, and merriment was had by all.
It seems that the judicial system worked as it should but some are upset that it did not work perfectly, with all facts known in hindsight, and that the imperfection was a lost weekend which will be fully compensated.
It looks like ThedaCare saw the writing on the wall and dropped the lawsuit in its entirety.
Eh, I think there was enough information up-front for the judge to dismiss the case immediately, and not make a lot of people sweat over the weekend. But it was only a delay of one business-day. So I’m not outraged or anything.
Hypothetically, if a plaintiff requesting a TRO inarguably fails to meet their low burden, and the TRO is granted anyway, but is ultimately rescinded, would you feel that was an example of the system working as it should (if not perfectly)? Or are you saying you think it was arguable here?
Personally, I don’t really begrudge the weekend status-quo-preserving order, without knowing what else was on the judge’s plate.
Someone upthread made a remark about the judge not being willing to stay late and impinge on their weekend. But the judges I’m familiar with have fully booked weekdays, and spend their nights and weekends reading briefs and cases, and writing. And some are on call for warrants over the weekend, too. They may just not have been able to give it enough attention until Monday. The employees were compensated and the injunction lifted as soon as there could be a hearing.
Yes, it’s imperfect, but it’s not a very bad result considering.
I do because
- He punted to give the two sides time to work out their differences rather than his job which was to read the complaint, ask if the workers were under contract, and upon hearing “No.” laugh it out of court.
- Whether intended or not, it was an example of “F the little guy in favor of corporate interest.”
- I’m not wholly convinced the decision on Monday would have been made had this story not exploded like it did.