Can’t steelman an argument that isn’t in front of me, but it’s probably a unique decision to this case that relies on the following alleged facts: 1. Ascension

Can’t steelman an argument that isn’t in front of me, but it’s probably a unique decision to this case that relies on the following alleged facts: 1. Ascension Wisconsin poached 7 of ThedaCare’s staff in a short period of time that were all part of an 11 person team 2. ThedaCare-Neenah is the only Level II Trauma Center in Fox Valley and 3. the people on this team have a set of hard to replace skills that the people of Fox Valley depend on and 4. this is a temporary order, only sufficient time for ThedaCare to find replacements. So the damage you’re worried about being done? I don’t want to discount the damage this might do to the 7 people who tried to change employers, but ThedaCare wants them to stay, working, which means getting paid, for that time, and this is unlikely to realistically affect anyone in a completely different industry and profession. Was it a good or fair call by the judge? Hard to say, but the “this will set a new precedent” types of arguments against an order or decision rarely end up setting the kinds of sustainable precedents people imagine they could.