Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuit. Show all posts

Friday, August 23, 2019

SEIU-UHW Staffer: ‘Whistleblower Was Correct about Dave Regan’



Remember when SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan sued one of his union’s organizers after she spoke to a publication about Regan’s alleged sexual misconduct, drinking on the job, backroom deals with employers, illegal electioneering and other misconduct?

Regan fired the 42-year-old woman organizer, and then sued her for allegedly defaming his character.

Will check this out.

Her attorneys submitted a sworn declaration from another SEIU-UHW staffer, who backs up everything she said to the media. A copy is below.

As Tasty earlier reported, the organizer did not backed down about the truthfulness of what she told the press. And she filed a motion in court to knock out Regan’s lawsuit and require him to pay for any court and legal costs she’s been forced to fund.

Here’s the affidavit:




Friday, September 7, 2018

Press: “Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit Filed against SEIU Prez’s Top Ally”



SEIU-UHW’s Dave Regan is getting more attention in the news… this time for allegations that he and other top SEIU-UHW officials engaged in harassment against women inside the union.

On August 21, Payday Report published an article detailing the latest developments in a lawsuit filed by Mindy Sturge against SEIU-UHW and Marcus Hatcher. Sturge first filed the lawsuit in May, but filed an updated and amended suit in July in Alameda County (Calif.) Superior Court. (Mike Elk, “Sexual Misconduct Lawsuit Filed Against SEIU Prez’s Top Ally,” Payday Report, August and 21, 2018)

Until recently, Hatcher directed SEIU-UHW’s Kaiser Division and served on the union’s Executive Board and Executive Committee. He was one of Regan’s top allies. Sturge, a “Coordinator” in SEIU-UHW’s Kaiser Division, was directly supervised by Hatcher.

Here’s an excerpt from the article. A full copy of the revised lawsuit is below.
Payday Report has learned that one of the largest Service Employees International Union locals in the country, California-based SEIU-UHW, has been sued in Alameda, California for sexual misconduct and assault committed by a top SEIU official against one of its former organizers. The lawsuits, obtained by Payday Report, accuses SEIU Vice President Dave Regan, who also serves as President of SEIU-UHW, of engaging in sexual misconduct…
SEIU-UHW has long faced criticism as one of the most corrupt and undemocratic union locals in the country; leading many #metoo activists to believe that the undemocratic culture within the union has bred a culture where misogyny and sexual misconduct flourish…
Now a lawsuit filed by a former SEIU staffer, Mindy Sturge, accuses SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan and former SEIU-UHW Kaiser Permanente Division Director Marcus Hatcher, of sexual misconduct and retaliation against Sturge for reporting it.
The lawsuit filed by Sturge also accuses SEIU-UHW of knowingly hiring organizers such as [Pedro] Malave who have been accused of sexual misconduct in other parts of the union.
According to the lawsuit: “Sturge and other women employees, and women union members were the subjects of inappropriate remarks that addressed their looks, their bodies, and their availability/interest in relationships. Sturge was also subjected to offensive touching, and she and others were discussed in inappropriate texts and in comments heard by or related to Sturge”.
Sturge reported the comments to SEIU-UHW management on several occasions, but no investigation was undertaken until Sturge was physically and sexually assaulted by Hatcher in September of 2017.
When Sturge finally did report the incidents, the lawsuit alleges that Regan, who was responsible for investigating all claims as President of the SEIU-UHW, verbally abused and berated Sturge in front of other staff members.
In November of 2017, Hatcher was reportedly fired from SEIU-UHW for violating SEIU’s non-fraternization policy, but the union took no disciplinary action against him for engaging in alleged sexual misconduct and assault. Nor was an action taken against SEIU UHW President Dave Regan for harassment of Sturge.
During this time period, the lawsuit alleges that Hatcher and his allies made social media posts and verbal comments accusing Sturge of lying about the story and trying to shake down Hatcher and the union for money after engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with Hatcher.
The lawsuit alleges that that “SEIU-UHW and its agents furthered the false and defamatory narrative about Sturge by announcing to others, both internally and externally, that Hatcher was fired for violation of the union’s non-fraternization policy as opposed to Hatcher having violated SEIU-UHW’s anti-harassment policy and/or having assaulted Sturge. This gave rise to the implication that Sturge and Hatcher had a consensual relationship or that his termination was the sole result of his consensual relationship(s) with other union staff and/or members”.

The lawsuit alleges that Hatcher and/or other SEIU-UHW staffers waged a campaign on Facebook and other social media designed to trash Sturge’s reputation and to lie about what happened. Here’s an excerpt from the lawsuit:
Among other things, these posts claim that Sturge had lied about the sexual assault by Hatcher, that she had “a consensual affair” with Hatcher, that she had ruined Hatcher’s life and career, that she is a “liar and manipulator,” that she is “a cheat and a home wrecker,” that she traveled to Los Angeles to further her alleged consensual affair with Hatcher, that she would go “bar-hopping” with Hatcher, and that she had reported Hatcher’s conduct to SEIU-UHW solely for the purpose of obtaining a monetary settlement…

According to the lawsuit, all of these statements are false and originated from Hatcher and/or other SEIU-UHW staffers. The latest version of the lawsuit says that when some of these Facebook post attacking Sturge were shown to Greg Pullman (SEIU-UHW’s Chief of Staff), he called the posts “disgusting.”

If the lawsuit proceeds to trial, says Payday Report, it could produce “volumes of evidence” that could shine a light on why top SEIU officials like Regan “were allowed to get away with sexual misconduct and retaliation against those who reported it.”




Monday, February 27, 2017

SEIU-UHW’s Dave Regan Loses (Again) to Hospital Association


Dave Regan’s winless streak is now even longer.

On February 17, 2017, an appeals court in California slapped down Regan’s latest legal airball. 

Regan filed the suit last month, just days after a Sacramento County Superior Court judge tossed out Regan’s personal lawsuit against the California Hospital Association (CHA) over his secret “partnership” deal with the CHA.

In response to the judge's action, Regan decided to sue the entire Sacramento County Superior Court in a case called “Regan, etc. v. The Superior Court of Sacramento County.”

In the suit, Regan implored the Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District to block the judge’s ruling that requires “Wall Street” Dave to undergo yet another round of “binding arbitration” over alleged violations of his secret deal with the CHA.

This time, it took the court only 17 days to whack Regan’s wobbly three-point attempt into the 17th row, according to court records. A copy of the one-sentence decision is below.

What’s next?

It looks like Regan, president of SEIU-UHW, and his erstwhile paramour, Duane Dauner (CEO of the CHA), will soon be perched on the witness stand where they can exchange wistful sighs and furtive glances.

More drama for Dave and Duane.

Stay tuned.



Friday, April 1, 2016

Dave Regan Plays Hide n' Seek with California Hospital Association


Here's the latest in the legal battle between SEIU-UHW and the California Hospital Association (CHA)… which has now spread across three California courthouses and features SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan’s alleged arm-breaking assault against a process server.

In the latest development, Regan has instructed his high-priced attorneys to play a game of legal "hide n’ seek" with the CHA.

Here's what's happening.

In November, SEIU-UHW filed a lawsuit against CHA CEO Duane Dauner in Sacramento Superior Court. The suit angrily attacked Dauner (Dave’s former BFF) for ditching SEIU-UHW in order to team up with Laphonza Butler and the SEIU California State Council.

In response, the CHA filed a countersuit in the same courthouse. The CHA asked the judge to consolidate the two lawsuits into a single case so all of the interrelated issues could be handled together.

Days later, Regan mysteriously dropped his lawsuit… only to refile it a week later in Los Angeles County Superior Court, some 400 miles away.

Apparently, Regan realized his lawsuit would soon be tossed by the judge, so he launched a game of legal hide n’ seek that involves SEIU-UHW's $500-an-hour attorneys ducking and hiding behind the shrubs, fenceposts and garbage cans of the legal world.

In recent days, the CHA responded by asking a Los Angeles judge to send Regan’s lawsuit back to Sacramento.

Here are some excerpts from the CHA's March 25 request to the Los Angeles judge, with a full copy below.

Take note of how the CHA describes Regan's 21st century vision of labor relations in which SEIU pursues "cooperation," rather than "confrontation," with healthcare corporations because of workers' "aligned interests" with the millionaire bosses and shareholders who employ them.
Defendants [CHA] move to transfer venue to Sacramento County, which is undoubtedly the "proper county" for this case and was the county where these defendants were sued over the same set of facts only a few months ago….
As noted, this is not the first time Mr. Dauner has faced a meritless action seeking to remove him as director and Co-Chair of [Caring for Californians, a Labor Management Committee]… In November 2015, UHW filed an action in Sacramento County, purportedly on behalf of CFC, seeking the same relief sought here under a different statute. After CHA moved to intervene in that action, UHW voluntarily dismissed its complaint… A week later, Mr. Regan filed this action.
Mr. Regan's complaint is as clear an example of forum shopping as can be imagined. The Corporations Code, however, prohibits that conduct. The Court should transfer this action to Sacramento County…
In 2014, UHW, CHA, and a number of California hospitals and health systems entered into an agreement titled the "Code of Conduct" that sought to align the interests of employers and employees and "create a new model for labor relations that is based on cooperation rather than confrontation." The Code of Conduct mandated the creation of a joint advocacy committee to function as a Labor Management Cooperation Committee... which UHW and CHA would jointly controlled to advance their common interest.



Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Source: SEIU-UHW's Dave Regan Broke Process Server's Arm


A source has revealed that SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan broke the arm of a process server who last month attempted to serve him with legal papers on behalf of the California Hospital Association (CHA).
                                                                              CBS News earlier reported that Regan pushed the process server down the stairs of Regan's Kensington, Calif. home, causing injuries that required attention from medical personnel.

According to Tasty's source, Regan actually broke the process server's arm.

Tasty also learned that the process server has taken legal action against Regan in civil court.

In a separate legal process, the District Attorney is reportedly reviewing police records to decide whether to file criminal charges against Regan.

Sources also identified the date and time of Regan's alleged assault on the process server. According to a "Proof of Service of Summons" posted below, a process server delivered a copy of the CHA's lawsuit to Regan's home on Monday, February 1, 2016 at 6:30pm.

The document, which names Regan and identifies his home address, states:
"I personally served the documents listed in Item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive service of process... on 02/01/2016 at 06:30pm."

So what were the documents that provoked Regan’s rage?
 
SEIU's Dave Regan
It was the CHA's counter-suit against SEIU-UHW.  

The lawsuit, filed January 26 in Sacramento County Superior Court, seeks to block Regan's November 2015 lawsuit against the CHA and to force SEIU-UHW into arbitration over its alleged violations of a secret "gag clause." In 2014, Regan signed the "gag clause" as part of his "partnership" agreement with the CHA.

Item 2 of the "Proof of Service," posted below, details the documents that were served on Regan on February 1:
Petitioner California Hospital Association's Notice of Petition and Petition to Compel Arbitration; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Notice of Related Case; Declaration of Gail M. Blanchard-Saiger in Support of Petition to Compel Arbitration; Declaration of F. Curt Kirshner, Jr. in Support of Petition to Compel Arbitration.

What's the status of the CHA's counter-suit?

In recent days, a Superior Court judge handed the CHA a victory in its countersuit by ordering SEIU-UHW's to submit itself to binding arbitration due to its alleged violations of the secret "gag clause." Until now, Regan has refused to go before an arbitrator.

It's unclear what financial and other penalties may be imposed on SEIU-UHW by an arbitrator. 




Friday, March 4, 2016

Judge Hands Victory to Hospital Association in Latest Legal Battle with SEIU-UHW's Dave Regan


Here's the latest news from the revealing legal battle between SEIU-UHW and the California Hospital Association (CHA).

Earlier this week, a Sacramento Superior Court judge handed the CHA a victory in its counter-suit against Dave Regan. The judge ordered SEIU-UHW to submit itself to binding arbitration due to its alleged violations of the secret "partnership" agreement Regan signed in 2014. Until now, Regan has refused to go before an arbitrator by claiming SEIU-UHW is no longer bound by the arbitration clause.

Not so, says the judge.

SEIU-UHW is liable for Regan's violations because Regan committed the violations while his secret deal with the CHA was still in effect, according to the judge’s ruling. (See a full copy below.)
Petitioner CHA seeks an Order under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 compelling arbitration before Arbitrator Richard Ahearn of three complaints brought by CHA against Respondent SEIU, United Healthcare Workers-West under the parties' written arbitration agreement… 
Petitioner California Hospital Association's Petition to Compel Arbitration is granted.

Which three complaints will now be sent to arbitration?

Here's where this lawsuit gets especially interesting. It reveals the dirty details of Regan's secret sell-out "partnership" deal with hospital CEOs. As part of this deal, for example, Regan agreed that SEIU-UHW would not "sponsor or support legislation, initiatives, or regulatory action adverse to the California hospital industry" or even make comments "raising concern about... executive compensation in health care."

What? A labor union that can't even whisper a peep about CEOs' fatcat salaries? Or support legislation that the Bosses don't like? Or file complaints against hospitals that violate patient-care standards? This, my friends, is SEIU-UHW -- the Bosses' union.

Here's how the judge describes three specific provisions of Regan's sellout deal (a.k.a., "the Code of Conduct") that’ll now be arbitrated:

CHA's First Complaint concerns an email UHW sent to a number of California hospital executives in November, making numerous derogatory statements about CHA and its leadership. CHA's November 15, 2015 arbitration complaint alleged that the derogatory language UHW used in the email violated Section I(B(I) of the Code of Conduct which requires that the parties' address their differences in a "positive manner" and refrain from "personal attacks or derogatory comments."
In its Second Complaint CHA alleged that UHW's sponsorship and support of the Hospital Executive Compensation Act of 2016 violated Sections 1(B) and 11(C) of the Code of Conduct by which UHW agreed not to "sponsor or support... initiatives adverse to the California hospital industry" or make comments "raising concern about... executive compensation in health care."
CHA's Third Complaint in arbitration concerns the lawsuit UHW brought against four CHA officers, accusing them of violating a fiduciary duty to CFC and committing various torts. (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 2015-00187138-CU-CO-GDS) Among the Anti-Employer activities Section 1(B)(2) expressly prohibits is "litigation" that is "directed at or with respect to CHA... and any of [its] officers, directors, managers or shareholders." CHA contends that UHW's lawsuit breaches the provision…


Stay tuned.


Friday, March 6, 2015

SEIU-UHW’s Dave Regan and Blue Wolf Capital Are Hit with Extortion Lawsuit


Dave Regan -- fresh off his failure to get the Daughters of Charity Health System to sell its six California hospitals to Blue Wolf Capital Partners -- now faces a multi-million-dollar lawsuit alleging a lengthy list of violations including extortion, civil conspiracy, and aiding and abetting.

And in case they were feeling left out of the party, both SEIU International in D.C. and Blue Wolf Capital (a private equity firm in New York) also are named as defendants in the civil suit filed by Daughters of Charity Health System (DCHS) in Santa Clara (CA) Superior Court on February 23rd.

Here's a quick summary of the 21-page suit, which seeks tens of millions of dollars in damages and attorneys fees. A full copy of the suit is below.

The lawsuit begins this way:
This is a case about a labor union and a private equity firm conspiring to hold hostage the proposed sale of Daughters of Charity Health System ("DCHS”) for illegal and extortive purposes. By using extortionist threats and bid chilling tactics to frustrate the sale as leverage for other commercial gains they seek, the Defendants have cost DCHS at a minimum tens of millions of dollars in continuing operational losses and professional fees. DCHS continues to face the possibility that the sale will not close, with potentially catastrophic consequences for DCHS's six California hospitals, thousands of employees and retirees of those hospitals, and the patients and communities whom the hospitals serve.
So what prize was Regan trying to extract through his "extortionist threats?"

Regan's goal was to extract a neutrality agreement from Prime Healthcare that would allow SEIU-UHW to unionize thousands of Prime's workers across California, according to the lawsuit.

SEIU-UHW's Dave Regan
In order to pressure Prime to sign on the dotted line, Regan threatened to block Prime’s purchase of the six Daughters of Charity hospitals.

How?

On July 24, 2014, Regan met with Prime's CEO and told him that "Prime would never get approval from the California Attorney General unless Prime agreed to a ‘neutrality agreement’ for Prime's other hospitals in California,” according to the suit. Apparently, Regan told Prime that he has enormous influence over the Attorney General and could block the sale... that is, unless Prime gave him what he wanted.

This, my friends, is extortion -- a criminal act.

When Prime refused to cave in to Regan's threats, Regan asked Blue Wolf to compete head-to-head against Prime in the bidding war for the hospitals… even though "Blue Wolf has no experience managing, owning, or operating healthcare facilities,” says the suit. Regan told Blue Wolf that he would block all of the competing bids, thereby assuring Blue Wolf’s success in the bidding process.

According to the lawsuit, Regan approached other bidders -- such as Alecto Healthcare Services and Strategic Global Management -- and told them "to withdraw from the sale process, stating that the SEIU Defendants had selected Blue Wolf and therefore Blue Wolf was the only viable bidder." Both companies dropped out of the bidding process, according to the suit.
 
Blue Wolf's Adam Blumenthal
Based on Regan's promise to block all competing bids, Blue Wolf deliberately submitted a “low-ball bid” and made "unusual demands" on DCHS, says the suit. For example, the private equity fatcats demanded that DCHS negotiate only with Blue Wolf and stop negotiating with all of the other bidders. Blue Wolf also insisted that the nuns -- that is, the Daughters of Charity religious order -- use its funds to help finance Blue Wolf's purchase of the hospital chain.

According to the lawsuit, "Both conditions were unacceptable to DCHS and had not been requested by the other, qualified bidders that had already showed interest."

According to the suit, Blue Wolf submitted a cheap bid that would have loaded mountains of debt onto DCHS and allowed Blue Wolf to suck profits from the hospitals through "a lucrative management agreement with a 10-year purchase option."

Blue Wolf's bid amounted to "a classic ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ scenario” where Blue Wolf would enjoy all of the upside profits but none of the downside risk, which would instead be borne entirely by workers, patients and creditors, says the suit.

The suit says Regan also sold out SEIU-UHW’s own union members who work at the six DCHS hospitals. The lawsuit refers to Regan's secret labor contract negotiated in a back room with Blue Wolf, which Tasty highlighted in an earlier post, that would
…reduce fringe benefit costs and eliminate restrictive work rules to ensure maximum operational flexibility." Blue Wolf has estimated that this change alone would create $90 million in savings on the back of workers at the DCHS Health Facilities.
The illegal actions by SEIU-UHW, Blue Wolf, and SEIU International imposed tens of millions of dollars of additional costs on DCHS, says the suit. By scaring off bidders, Regan "chilled" the bidding process and forced DCHS to accept a lower price for the hospitals than it otherwise would have gotten. 
 
Ron Bloom aided Blue Wolf
Regan also delayed the entire bidding process, forcing DCHS "to burn through cash at a rate of millions of dollars each month." The lawsuit also alleges that Blue Wolf and SEIU-UHW violated confidentiality agreements signed as part of the bidding process.
The interference and bid chilling by the SEIU Defendants and Blue Wolf has cost DCHS unknown dollars of sale consideration and has created a substantial threat of irreparable injury to DCHS, including DCHS's bankruptcy and the closure of the DCHS Health Facilities.
The lawsuit ends with these paragraphs:
57. This is not a case about labor versus big companies. The CNA, SEIU Local 121 RN, and a majority of the SEIU-represented employees at DCHS who have spoken publicly, strongly support the proposed sale between DCHS and Prime and voiced their disagreement with Defendants' self-serving opposition to the sale.
58. The SEIU Defendants chose to imperil the existence of DCHS—as well as the wellbeing of its patients and employees—to gain the upper hand. in completely unrelated efforts to assert influence over unrelated hospitals owned by Prime and to enrich themselves.
59. In so doing, the SEIU Defendants turned a blind eye to the best interests of union members who work for DCHS. Most members of unions affiliated with the SEIU Defendants who work far DCHS support the sale of the Health System to Prime. They understand that this sale represents the best and only hope to keep DCHS out of bankruptcy, to ensure that the DCHS Health Facilities stay open, and to fulfill existing pension obligations.
60. The SEIU Defendants and Blue Wolf have interfered with the sale to Prime and chilled bids with callous disregard for the best interests of DCHS's or the Hospital Corporations' current or former employees, patients, creditors, or communities served. Blue Wolf's only goal is to control DCHS's assets without adequately capitalizing the hospitals or incurring any downside risk, and the SEIU Defendants' only goal is to expand membership and inflate their own influence.
61. Defendants' threats have caused DCHS and Prime millions of dollars in professional fees and legal fees; delayed the transaction process, forcing DCHS to incur millions of dollars in continued operating losses; and resulted in a lower overall purchase price. Meanwhile, DCHS faces the danger of running out of money. The DCHS Health Facilities may be forced to close, with drastic consequences to public health in the served communities. If that happens, it would be as a direct result of the Defendants' actions.


Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Worker Wins First Round of Battle against Dignity Health; SEIU-UHW's Dave Regan Hides in Boss's Bed




Here’s an update from an earlier story.

Remember the California worker who filed a class-action lawsuit against Dignity Health after SEIU-UHW’s Dave Regan failed to do anything to protect the retirement benefits of 15,000 SEIU-UHW members?

Last April, the worker filed a federal lawsuit to force Dignity to fix the massive underfunding of workers’ retirement benefits. The lawsuit says that Dignity has shorted workers’ retirement funds by $1.2 billion… and asks the court to force Dignity to make workers whole for lost benefits!

Here’s the latest.

Last month, the worker won the first round of the legal battle in federal court! Here's what happened. 

Dignity hired a team of lawyers and tried to knock the lawsuit out of court. But on December 12, 2013, the judge issued a 13-page ruling (see below) that delivered a smack-down to Dignity and handed a first-round victory to workers! Now, the lawsuit can move forward to the next stage.

Where’s SEIU-UHW in all of this?

AWOL. Regan and his buddies have climbed so far in bed with Dignity’s fatcat executives that they’d never think of actually fighting the company!

Here’s the judge’s ruling:


Tuesday, June 4, 2013

California Appeals Court: Civil Lawsuit against Top SEIU Officials for Campaign of Violence Must Go Forward



On Friday, a California appeals court announced an important legal victory for four rank-and-file healthcare workers and three NUHW officers in their lawsuit against SEIU. Tasted has pasted a copy of the decision below.

The unanimous decision, issued by a panel of appeals judges, orders a lower court to go forward with a civil lawsuit against SEIU’s top officials including President Mary Kay Henry, Secretary-Treasurer Eliseo Medina, President Emeritus Andy Stern, former Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger and SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan.

The lawsuit alleges that SEIU violated civil rights laws by carrying out a plan of assault, battery, intimidation, threat and coercion in an effort to silence SEIU's critics.

Here are the details:

In 2011, the rank-and-file workers and NUHW officers filed the lawsuit against SEIU. (Interestingly, some of the rank-and-file workers are actually SEIU’s own members.)  

Next, SEIU’s attorneys got a judge to improperly toss out the lawsuit. The workers and NUHW’s officers fought back and just won a unanimous decision from an appeals court that orders the lower court to proceed with the lawsuit. In addition, the judges forced SEIU to repay nearly $60,000 to the workers and NUHW officers along with unspecified costs for the appeals process.

The lawsuit was triggered by SEIU’s multiple acts of violence, threats and intimidation against NUHW supporters during SEIU’s infamous trusteeship of SEIU-UHW.

According to the appeals judges’ decision, the original lawsuit contains 25 paragraphs alleging “specific acts of assault, battery, intimidation, threat and coercion directed at plaintiffs and other NUHW supporters by persons purportedly affiliated with the SEIU.” These acts include…
SEIU agents threw eggs and water bottles at plaintiffs and other NUHW supporters at a Los Angeles event in November 2009.

SEIU hired armed security guards who surveilled, videotaped, and intimidated them.

SEIU agents have made multiple death threats to plaintiff Glasper, followed her to medical appointments, physically grabbed her NUHW badge, and threatened and attempted to strike her.

SEIU agents yelled at, pushed, assaulted, and threatened defendants Borsos, Rosselli, and Cornejo, and NUHW supporter, Dolores Huerta, at numerous other workplace meetings with health care employees.
And that's just the beginning!

SEIU said these acts of violence were simply “free speech,” and then attempted to get the lawsuit tossed out of court. The appeals judges unanimously rejected SEIU’s argument, writing:

Defendants [SEIU] maintain all or most of these allegations were also "constitutionally-protected speech activities" taking place in connection with a public issue--the labor dispute between SEIU and NUHW. We disagree. Conduct illegal as a matter of law is not protected… Threats of violence or bodily injury are not protected activities...
The allegations against nondefendant SEIU members included multiple and repeated acts of assault and battery, threats of violence and death, property damage, and physically accosting and surrounding NUHW supporters in a threatening manner. The gravamen of all three of plaintiffs' causes of action is illegal conduct--violence, assault, threats of physical harm, intimidation, and coercion--that is constitutionally unprotected. (p. 7)

The appeals judges' decision also contains this excerpt referring to both SEIU President Mary Kay Henry and SEIU-UHW’s Dave Regan:
These paragraphs alleged, inter alia, (1) defendants had a policy and practice of utilizing physical intimidation against individuals and other unions they came to perceive as their "'enemies'" in the labor movement; (2) defendants had carried out their policy of intimidation on specified occasions to break into and attack meetings held by enemy unions and individuals other than plaintiffs; (3) at a January 2009 meeting with SEIU agents in Las Vegas, individual defendant Henry instructed members on tactics of intimidation to be used against plaintiffs and their supporters and told the members, "You are SEIU's warriors!"; and (4) in a campaign leading up to a representation election in Fresno between SEIU and NUWH, defendant Regan instructed a large gathering of SEIU agents to intimidate NUWH supporters, to "give them an ass-whipping," to "drive a stake through [their] hearts," to "bury them . . . in the ground," and to threaten Hispanic workers that the immigration service would be called on them if they did not vote for SEIU.  (p. 3)
Regan's speech to his "old school" friends in Fresno was famously captured in multiple YouTube videos, including this one.

What’s next?

The lower court will now go forward with the lawsuit. Hmm... Tasty would love to see Mary Kay Henry, Andy Stern and Dave Regan squirming on the witness stand!

Stay tuned!