My understanding is the hospital loosing the staff filed an emergency injunction to prohibit the second hospital from hiring the staff. This does not solve the staffing problem since the injunction does not require the staff to go back to their old jobs, only that they cant start their new ones. So now both hospitals are understaffed. I also learned the staff approached hospital management to see if they could improve their working conditions and compensation. The requests failed so they took better jobs. Proper notices were given and again management did nothing. They are due back in court today.

This is a reprint, so it was originally posted before the decision.

It varies from university to university. For the University of California, for instance, it requires a vote among tenured staff, with the majority of the votes favoring termination. And in some cases, that can be a *very* hard sell, no matter how egregious the reason. (Such as Ricardo Hector Asch, of UCI fertility clinic scandal fame, who did lose his tenure – while he was an international fugitive on criminal charges for mail fraud and tax evasion. The vote, in that case, was just *barely* over 50%, despite that.)

It’s a little subtler than that, from what I’ve read. The staff in question are the 24/7 on-call staff for the only emergency room certified to deal with strokes, and they all gave notice at the same time, which would a) seriously compromise the service to people who may die without it, and b) disqualify them for certification (until they hire replacements, which will take a while).

And the ruling wasn’t that “they can’t quit,” it was that one doctor and one nurse have to be available or on call to meet the requirements for the certification, until more staff is hired.

(The counterpoint is that – according to the staff – there’s no attempt going on to hire those replacements. Neither side can be viewed as without bias. The real issue seems to be that they got better – *much* better – offers from a competitor, and took it.)

Yup. Bostock v Clayton Country – the Supreme Court already ruled that sexual orientation and gender identity and expression are covered by title VII:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County

Thanks so much for putting it up.