I could see such a case – “You’re enjoined from from conducting services at the new temple in the neighborhood until we clarify what your neighbors are claiming about goats and bonfires.” Or “your honor, my sacraments cannot be performed via Zoom, it violates my freedom of religion to have to limit my congregation to one quarter capacity and require masks.” “OK, let’s have a hearing on it next Tuesday, meanwhile, you have to comply.”
Just because the right answer seems bloody obvious to us doesn’t mean it was some atrocity to take two business days to make a ruling.
Yes, and the judge saw that on Monday. Why do I think if the judge didn’t enter the TRO and some old lady died of a stroke over that weekend that there would be posters calling the judge a corporate whore for not granting relief?
I’m sure there would have been - but that doesn’t mean they would be right or that that’s how decisions should be made , because I guarantee that if the old lady died of a stroke on Monday morning with the restraining order in place , someone would have said she wouldn’t have died if only the employees had been working at Ascension.
Did you read the article at the beginning of the thread? ThedaCare knew more than a month in advance and had told the employees they wouldn’t match the offer.
What part of “at-will” makes it OK for an employer to try to force employees to stay due to the employer’s inaction?
There’s a big difference between saying " Judges are human beings and make mistakes as all humans do" and saying the judge was correct and reasonable to issue the restraining order.
Now does everyone see the problem with all the Republican judges that get appointed?
What happens if the next time something like this comes up and the judge opines that corporate interests are more important than individual interests?
One thing Ultravries keeps avoiding is: what is the duty of care that private citizens owe to potential patients that trumps their right to change jobs? What evidence did ThedaCare present that Friday that a judge would even consider preventing people from changing jobs? “Your Honor, they poached our employees. True they were not under contract and we’ve known about this for over a month and we refused to meet their fair market value but you should really stop them exercising their rights.” I have a lot of problems with a judge taking away people’s rights (even de minimis) just to punt the case that they weren’t even a party to until later. Would UV be OK if the First Baptist Church didn’t like thier congregation going to the Second Baptist Church so while First was suing Second a judge told people they couldn’t worship where they wanted?
And correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t one element of issuing a TRO that ThedaCare was likely to succeed in their suit? If this was the solution on Friday, I’m not wholly convinced the judge would have reversed himself without the public outcry.
The better course would have been “I don’t like this complaint and I’m not signing anything. If you really have a case, bring me evidence on Monday and I’ll consider it.” Thus they have to cover the weekend “crisis” (after a month of warning) but get a very expedited hearing due to the urgent nature of their allegations,
@UltraVires Out of curiosity, how long do you think would be too long? A week? A month? 90 days?
This isn’t a “gotcha”, I’m just wondering where you would draw the line since it feels like the remaining debate has become: “One day is too much” vs “One day is reasonable”.
Each case is judged on its own facts. Yes, if it was a week or a month, then I would be grabbing the pitchforks for your side. But it was one single weekend.
It’s not. The judge didn’t force them to continue work at their old employer. That would be a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. He stopped their new employer from hiring them.
