Opening Brief for Appellant/Cross-Appellee - Appellate.net

that she could not recruit the therapists, but that she could provide them with
certain specific information about the termination of CGB’s contract. After
speaking to Knaup, Tomes’ understanding was
JA335.
[t]hat I could inform the therapists that the contract had been canceled
and the effective date. I could let them know that if they had an
interest to be interviewed by Symphony, that they could sign a piece
of paper with their name and phone number. And then, finally, that it
was not at all to do with performance. It was absolutely an economic
decision.
Accordingly, on July 31, 1998, Tomes held a five-minute meeting with
several of CGB’s therapists. The meeting took place in Tomes’ office, which had
a glass door. She informed the therapists that CGB’s contracts with RHA were
being terminated because RHA believed that CGB’s pricing structure was
incompatible with new Medicare regulations, and that Symphony would be
retained as the new therapy service provider both at Prospect Park and at the
Pembrooke facility. Tomes then provided the therapists with a “sign-up sheet” on
which they could leave their names and contact information if they wished to talk
to Symphony. None of the therapists testified that Tomes attempted to persuade
anyone to leave CGB. Rather, she simply relayed to them that (i) CGB’s contract
had been terminated and (ii) employment opportunities might be available with
Symphony. See JA457-JA460. Soon after the meeting, one of the therapists
8