Abbott v Women's & Children's Hospital Inc No. Scciv-01-1785

The case of Abbott v Women's & Children's Hospital Inc No. Scciv-01-1785 involves the plaintiff, who was employed as the Assistant Director in the Cranio-Facial Research Unit by the defendant, the Women's & Children's Hospital Inc. The dispute arose from the termination of the plaintiff's employment contract, which was initially set for a fixed term of three years ending on October 30, 1990. The plaintiff sought to challenge the decision to terminate his employment, arguing it was void due to bad faith, improper purpose, or lack of procedural fairness, and that the defendant was bound by the requirements of section 5 of the PSM Act.

The legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation of the employment contract and whether it continued beyond its fixed term, and the applicability of section 5 of the PSM Act to the employment contract. The court had to determine whether the defendant was required to observe the statutory requirements in terminating the plaintiff's employment and if the decision to terminate was procedurally fair. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain the plaintiff's entitlement to be considered for reappointment and the impact of the defendant's failure to re-advertise the position.

The court, in its reasoning, found that the form of the summons was initially defective as it did not clearly identify the decision under challenge. However, the court allowed the plaintiff to serve an amended summons, addressing the procedural defect. Regarding the substantive issues, the court concluded that it was arguable that section 5 of the PSM Act applied to the employment contract, and thus the action for judicial review had prospects of success. The court further noted that the defendant conceded the applicability of the PSM Act but did not concede to the other grounds of challenge raised by the plaintiff. The court ordered the quashing of the decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment, finding it was not procedurally fair and did not adequately consider the plaintiff's entitlement to reappointment. The court also directed the defendant to refrain from treating the plaintiff's employment as terminated and considered the possibility of awarding damages to the plaintiff.

In conclusion, the court quashed the decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment and prohibited the defendant from proceeding with the termination. The court also ordered a declaration that the plaintiff is a permanent employee of the defendant, subject to certain terms and conditions. The defendant was further directed to refrain from treating the plaintiff's employment as terminated and was open to the possibility of awarding damages to the plaintiff.