So the judge should just tell a few people that they have to die because of ThedaCare’s fuck up?
Really? What do you think ThedaCare expects to get out of this suit? Their complaint is that they’re losing the service of employees who don’t want to work there. Clearly their desired outcome is for employees to stay right where they are, for wages that are demonstrably below market.
Theda doesn’t want this situation to be temporary. They don’t want the workers to find different work at yet a third employer. They want them to shut up and stay put and quit asking for better wages.
Has any evidence been presented that people will in fact die, rather than that they will have to be transferred to other hospitals and the real suffering will be to ThedaCare’s profits?
In any case, this idea that the employees under TRO would receive their new higher salaries while working for ThedaCare is irrelevant, since the court order doesn’t seem to make any provision for that.
No, under those bare facts, a judge wouldn’t stop them from firing you.
To get the injunction, you’d also have to be alleging an immediate, irreparable harm and some malfeasance by your employer. And, to fit the analogy, you’d have to be asking the court to delay the firing to avoid the harm, not unwind it.
Which is why this is going to be so fact specific.
Imagine, under your scenario, that you aren’t alleging a need to pay your bills, but the fact that you have life saving surgery scheduled for next month, which you won’t be able to afford if you lose the insurance coverage the job provides. And you are further claiming that you are only being fired because of retaliation for telling the owner about your boss’ inappropriate conduct.
You haven’t had a chance to file any sort of employment discrimination claim, but you have emails and text messages to show that’s why you were let go.
Under those facts, a judge might consider enjoining your termination for 90 days to allow the surgery to occur.
They can want whatever they want, but the law doesn’t allow them to do this. The workers have attorneys as well. There has been no decision on the merits. This is a temporary order to stop imminent harm from coming to people. At the end, ThedaCare will owe those employees money for restraining their ability to market themselves.
Not a lawyer, not familiar with Wisconsin state law, but I wouldn’t be shocked if, come Monday (depending perhaps on how the next hearing goes) or very shortly thereafter there is a counter-suit from the employees against ThedaCare. Depending on what kind of support they are able to mobilize (since it’s in the press now, and seems ripe for exploitation by interest groups, for good or ill), they might just be able to manage abiding by the judge’s order (not starting work at Ascension), but without returning to work at ThedaCare.
People may die, but it won’t be because of greedy employees. It will be because this nation’s healthcare “system” demands that people who might otherwise receive lifesaving care will instead die for the sake of private industry eeking out profits.
There has not been a trial or an elaborate presentation of evidence. At the TRO stage, a simple declaration of “people will die” is generally enough to get a judge’s attention. If it turns out later that it was a complete lie, then the party that lied will be paying and their lawyers will be visiting the disciplinary board. The order does not make any provisions for damages because it is only a TRO. I know I keep saying that, but it is the very first step in the process: halt the harm and we will figure it all out later.
Cite?
They’ve literally asked for 90 days.
After approaching ThedaCare with the chance to match the offers they’d been given, Breister wrote that they were told “the long term expense to ThedaCare was not worth the short term cost,” and no counter-offer would be made.
What do you want to *bet that’s because they aren’t likely to ever get a judge to come out and say, much less at such an early stage, that “These people can never ever ever work for the competition”? What they’ve asked for and what they’re aiming for aren’t necessarily the same thing, particularly when constrained by what remedies the law will allow.
*ETA: Not literally. No bet is actually being proposed here. I mean that only as a rhetorical device.
If you look at the docket, there were some affidavits filed. It’s anybody’s guess what they say, but there is at least a proffer of some evidence of something.
90 days to find a replacement. What do you think they’ll do if they can’t find replacements?
Right. Which is all that is needed. I would hope that a judge would enjoin nearly any action for a time period of “over the weekend” if someone, anyone, came to them and said, “Judge, if you don’t do X, people will die.”
Touché. But that quote comes from one of the employees who was leaving. I’m not sure I take it at face value.
The judge could have included in the TRO a provision requiring ThedaCare to pay the higher salaries while the employees were forced to work for them. Why should the employees have to hope to be paid damages in the future that will be contingent on their ability to afford good lawyers? If the court is wanting to “halt the harm” it should do so for all parties.
Sure, though as I read the article, that was in documents submitted to the court. I give that more credibility than if he had just said it to the reporter.
And yet, at this stage of the process, isn’t that precisely the sort of stance the court has to take with respect to pleadings? Take them at face value?
As a private citizen, I am just as or more willing to take at face value statements by employees, their counsel, or counsel representing their perspective employer as I am their (hopefully soon to be) former employer.
Oh, I completely agree. And it’s why i do not simply accept as conclusive any particular theory about what is happening (even if it is coming from one of the participants themselves), anymore than I’d uncritically accept as true the allegations of a civil lawsuit.
As you’ve explained, we are at “Everybody freeze! Let’s take a look!” Stage, not at “These people can’t leave! That’s an order!” Stage.
Because not much evidence is presented for a TRO. The judge may very well think that such a remedy is coming, but why enter such an order on no evidence, when you can just as easily order it next week or next month after a full presentation of evidence and exact dollar amounts are proven?
Because as noted, at this early temporary stage, you have two competing claims. One is that people will die if you don’t enter the injunction. The other claim is that I am not allowed to work for my preferred employer and make more money.
Any judge can look at that and see that we can deal with money and new employment later but can’t make people undead. Let’s err on the side of caution because people might die and any harm on the other side we can take care of later.