Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Effete Snob

(8,387 posts)
8. That's irrelevant
Sun Jan 23, 2022, 04:37 PM
Jan 2022

It’s not about the employees. It’s not about the lack of a non-compete clause, since they don’t have contracts in the first place.

This is a lawsuit between two hospitals. It is an unfair competition lawsuit. That uses the word “compete” but not in the sense of a non-compete contract.

Unfair competition is an area of law that includes a bunch of different things that businesses are not allowed to do - like trademark infringement, theft of trade secrets, and so on. The plaintiff hospital is suing the defendant hospital alleging that the defendant hospital used unfair methods of recruiting the entire staff of one of the plaintiff’s units.

The defendant hospital is saying that all of the employees just happened to respond to an advertisement - all of them, by coincidence. The judge apparently does not believe that.

I didn’t say anything about the employees having a non-compete clause, because that’s not what this suit is even about.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»Hospital Sues At-Will Wor...»Reply #8