Why are you asking him? Why not ask the judge? We don’t have all the records.
They had already quit.
Because as an attorney, you would think he would know duty of care laws. At least the basics with the caveat of YMMV on your state or “Not my field so I may be missing some of the obscure ones.”
Wow. First paragraph alone:
Defendant Ascension NE Wisconsin, Inc. (“Ascension”) recruited seven of eleven total members of ThedaCare’sinterventional radiology and cardiovascular team (the “IRC team”) at ThedaCare Regional
Medical Center – Neenah (“Neenah Medical Center”) and set the stage for their simultaneous
departure from ThedaCare. Simply put, these departing employees are not replaceable on a
moment’s notice – they are highly trained invasive radiology technicians and nurses that provide
life-saving treatment where patients might otherwise die minutes later.
Ascension did not “recruit” or set up their simultaneous departure and “a moment’s notice” is apparently more than a month.
I really hope ThedaCare gets sanctions for this bullshit.
« Unethical » is not a legal standard.
What law did Ascension infringe, at least primas faciie, to support a TRÔ?
It can’t be that employees quit and PEOPLE MAY DIE because the employees can quit at will. They can’t be held to their jobs if they’re at will.
What legal harm was alleged, on the part of Ascension, to support the TRO?
Me, too.
I’m not sure what you think the relevance of “at will” is, but they were free to quit in any US state, and they were not the subjects of the suit. Their quitting was perfectly legal and no one challenged their right to do so.
Because « at will » is different from a contract for a term or for notice.
If an employee has agreed to work for a particular term, or agreed to give notice, then a third party who entices them away may be liable for tortious interference with contract.
But if it’s at will, I’m having trouble seeing a claim for tortious interference.
Just their right to work at their new job until if and when the judge changed his mind. I guess he respected their right to starve, so there’s that.
I think that you are confusing the employees with Ascension. Nobody is talking about “at will” which means what it suggests. The allegation was that Ascension had “poached” employees (the term you hated 
)
Clearly they didn’t infringe on any law. I get your point now on the at will aspect of a tortious interference claim. Theda would have needed a smoking gun to support that kind of claim, and didn’t have anything but their own incompetence.
Yes and no. Although they sprinkle the term “tortuous interference”, in their motion, they never actually state what that interference is (OK they do but … read below). Reading the document that doreen linked to, they were quite straightforward about the timeline and that TC tried to negotiate with the employees and Ascension but didn’t get what they wanted. I think this speaks best as TC’s argument
The balancing of harms in this case is straightforward and heavily in ThedaCare’s favor.
On one hand, if the Court does not issue the injunction, ThedaCare’s ability to care for trauma
and stroke patients will be hindered until it can find staff to replace those that departed.
Consequently, ThedaCare will need to divert those patients away from Neenah Medical Center.
This endangers lives in these communities when minutes matter and adds pressure to an
overburdened health-care system.
On the other hand, if the Court issues the temporary injunction, Ascension will only
endure delay in its plan to employ the departing IR team members. Maintenance of the status quo
allows the continuation of the current system of trauma care and stroke care in the Fox River
Valley region and the state. Failure to maintain the status quo will immediately plunge critical
care into disarray in the region and affect the provision of medical services statewide. There is no
harm in requiring Ascension to continue the status quo while Ascension and ThedaCare
expeditiously address this issue. The need to ensure public health – especially during a pandemic
– far outweighs this dispute.
But this raises the same old issue. The status quo would require the employees to stay at TC which
- Is slavery
- The judge did not require
But wait, what’s this?
Indeed, ThedaCare has a cause of action for tortious interference with contracts at least
sufficient to justify a temporary injunction preserving the status quo during the pendency of the
case. The departing IR team members are currently employed by ThedaCare and ThedaCare
expects their continued employment but for any improper interference
This is their tortuous interference but … what contracts? And “expects their continued employment but for any improper interference”? WTF, you expect employees for life unless “poached”? I’m sure if the employees were fired said “we expect continued employment but for any improper interference” then HR would say, “It’s an at-will state. Get the fuck out of my office.”
Gotta love this one
Unfortunately, Ascension interfered not only with ThedaCare’s relationship with its employees, but also with its relationship with the patients whose lives it could save when it chose to selfishly raid ThedaCare’s IRC team.
No proof necessary about the interference I guess. Later more “OMG people are going to die” if the leave as per “at will”.
ThedaCare is not trading in hyperbole when it says that patient lives are at risk if the departing IR team members resign en masse as planned.
Based on this, do you think the TRO was appropiate?
Why do you think it was appropriate on Friday to allow the employees to leave TC (thus changing the status quo) yet not taking new jobs at Ascension?
Should TC face sanctions for bringing contracts into the argument when there were no contracts, thus invalidating the whole “poaching” argument?
Do you believe people should not be allowed to take on different employment when corporate interests are at play?
Read my above post. They mention contracts that didn’t exist.
That’s not a right.
A very excellent post. I would just say that the judge saw “lives it could save” and gave them a weekend. I would hope that your local judge would do that for you and then make you (the general you) pay out the wazoo on Monday when he found out you (general you) lied to him.
ThedaCare said a month before they wouldn’t match the offer yet did nothing to replace the departing employees. Any emergency created(and/or lives potentially lost) is on them.
And the fact that the judge scheduled the hearing for that Monday showed he didn’t like the complaint. If I rushed into a judge’s office on a Friday, with that complaint, which I would not draft, the judge would say, “Mr. Ultravires, this looks like horseshit to me, but as an officer of the court, I’ll give you Monday. Don’t make me regret this.”
And we get all that. Our objection to this was the employees got caught in the middle and were de facto left unpaid for an indeterminate amount of time. And yes, they were made whole after one day, but our side of the argument is that it should not have gotten to that point. Now if the judge said, “You cannot work for Ascension but TC wants the status quo so they will pay you until this is resolved” that would work.
Now , I see your point if the Judge honest believed there were contracts as stated and he told the employees that they must fulfill their contract, but if that is the case then why are TC officers and attorneys not facing perjury, contempt, sanctions, etc.
Their reputation has certainly been sullied, if you read nursing forums online.
People who work “at will” still have employment contracts that could be interfered with, which is exactly what was alleged in the pleading. For example, if my employer decided to pay me less than what I agreed to work for, for work I already performed, what stops them from doing that is that we have a contract. They can say, going forward, we’ll now only pay you half, because it’s not a term contract. If I continue working after being told my pay has been cut, then I’ve accepted the new employment offer, and we have a new contract. If I don’t accept, and quit instead, neither of us has violated the contract, because neither of us promised to give a certain amount of notice, or work for so many years, etc. But there’s still a contract.
ThedaCare did not plead the terms of the contract, so its pleading is vague and doesn’t specify how Ascension allegedly tortiously interfered with the contracts. Because there are possible terms of an employment contract, like noncompete clauses, that could be implicated, I think a judge who did not have time to deal with it on a Friday would maybe, maybe, be not unreasonable in maintaining the status quo until a hearing on Monday.
If I were the judge, I’d like to say that I’d tell them the pleading was weaksauce. But, there were allegations that 7 of 11 employees were recruited from a single unit, and despite having interviewed some two months earlier, Ascension arranged for them all to leave on the same day. And an allegation that the evidence would show that Ascension tortiously interfered with the contractual relationship between ThedaCare and the employees.
I do think it was a mistake to grant the TRO, but I don’t think it was an egregious one if the judge had little time to address it, and depending on the pleading rules in that state.
Not in its pleading. This looks, to a judge, like a factual dispute that will require evidence to resolve, requiring a lengthier hearing, with witnesses, which is what they had on Monday.
Yes, that was the allegation: poaching.
And I still don’t see how that’s an allegation of unlawful behaviour on the part of Ascension, sufficient to meet the prima facie / arguable case that is needed for a TRO?