S07.E10: Jackie And The Wolf

[Dobian]

I'm not sure I follow this.  If you are offering testimony about another person at a hearing, the other side has the right to raise questions about your objectivity.  That would be one factor a judge or a hearing board would use to decide how much weight to give your testimony.  I think once Gloria veered off Jackie's performance at work, and started discussing Jackie's personal life, she left herself open to those types of questions.  

 

The point is that Jackie's lawyer conducted a private investigation into a supervisor's personal life, much like a private detective would.  While Akalitis should not have brought up Jackie's family in that hearing, she was simply giving her opinion based on things she knew about Jackie from Jackie.  She didn't hire a private detective to investigate Jackie.  And while Jackie didn't ask her lawyer to do this, she gave him her approval to use it.  Regardless of what Akalitis said in that hearing, she had no business doing this.  If I am on that board, I look at Jackie and see someone who is willing to cross ethical lines by invading someone's private life like that just so she can get her job back, and that is the kind of behavior that is consistent with a drug addict who is willing to manipulate, use, and hurt people to get what she wants.  So she is done and her license is revoked.  Forget this hearing.  Say you are just interviewing someone for a job and you somehow uncover that they hired a detective to investigate you and some of the managers at your company.  Would you hire this individual?  Of course not!  Jackie's lawyer no doubt went through Akalitis' bank records, phone records, and whatever else he could get his hands on.  That is a significant difference from Jackie simply questioning Akalitis' objectivity.  That is a gross breach of privacy.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Dobian

[txhorns79]

The point is that Jackie's lawyer conducted a private investigation into a supervisor's personal life, much like a private detective would.  While Akalitis should not have brought up Jackie's family in that hearing, she was simply giving her opinion based on things she knew about Jackie from Jackie.  She didn't hire a private detective to investigate Jackie.  And while Jackie didn't ask her lawyer to do this, she gave him her approval to use it.  Regardless of what Akalitis said in that hearing, she had no business doing this.

 

Provided the lawyer used legal methods to gather the information (for example, the fact Akalitus has a son, and the son has a long criminal record and addiction issues, would likely be public information), it's perfectly legitimate to investigate persons who are going to offer testimony either against you or on your behalf at a hearing.  If they are going to be against you, you want to be able to challenge their credibility, if possible.  If they are for you, you don't want anything to pop up at the hearing that undermines them, and people don't always volunteer that kind of information. 

 

 

Associating with shady individuals would indeed be relevant under the broad concern of ethical conduct.

 

I don't think it would be.  Otherwise, you would essentially be giving the nursing board unprecedented power to pry into any licensed nurse's private life and associations under the guise of policing their ethical conduct.  It's just guilt by association, and would essentially be punishing Jackie based upon allegations concerning a third party to whom she's engaged. 

[PrincessSteel]

Two episodes to go and so much ground to cover before the inevitable conclusion: All Saints is saved and Jackie winds up as a semi-homeless, semi-lucid wack job. Zoey, Thor and Gloria have to dodge her every morning on their way to work.

[Dobian]

Provided the lawyer used legal methods to gather the information (for example, the fact Akalitus has a son, and the son has a long criminal record and addiction issues, would likely be public information), it's perfectly legitimate to investigate persons who are going to offer testimony either against you or on your behalf at a hearing.  If they are going to be against you, you want to be able to challenge their credibility, if possible.  If they are for you, you don't want anything to pop up at the hearing that undermines them, and people don't always volunteer that kind of information. 

 

Right, he can legally do this.  But you frame this like it's a criminal court case.  This is a job hearing.  And digging up dirt on a manager or supervisor, even if it's all on public record, does nothing to make your case that you are a reformed drug addict, and paints you as someone who is willing to cross ethical lines to get your desired result.  It reflects on your character as a person.  So even if you do somehow show that the supervisor is biased, to me you have sunk your case because you did not take the high road, you are showing yourself to be someone that any hospital in its right mind would not want around .  Instead of proving to me why you are reformed and should be reinstated, you are slinging mud at your boss.

[txhorns79]

But you frame this like it's a criminal court case.  This is a job hearing.  And digging up dirt on a manager or supervisor, even if it's all on public record, does nothing to make your case that you are a reformed drug addict, and paints you as someone who is willing to cross ethical lines to get your desired result.  It reflects on your character as a person.  So even if you do somehow show that the supervisor is biased, to me you have sunk your case because you did not take the high road, you are showing yourself to be someone that any hospital in its right mind would not want around .  Instead of proving to me why you are reformed and should be reinstated, you are slinging mud at your boss.

 

I guess my question would be, if your supervisor trashes you to the hearing board, and you say nothing to challenge their credibility/objectivity, aren't you essentially conceding the hearing?  I mean, how would anyone who matters know that you've "taken the high road?"  Wouldn't they just assume what your supervisor said was true, since you aren't challenging it, permanently revoke your license and be done with it?       

 

I've represented people at administrative hearings, not exactly in situations like Jackie's, but in similar forums.  You should very much treat it as though you are in court in front of a Judge.  The rules are more constrained than in a civil or criminal proceeding, but if someone is testifying against you, you would be remiss not to try and challenge their credibility (if that is possible). 

[txhorns79]

In "x" past instances, I have supported Jackie's efforts at rehabilitation, including authorizing twenty-eight days of vacation on short notice for her to enter in-patient rehabilitation. Jackie did not complete that treatment. Because of my past knowledge of her evasion of treatment and trust in the person who notified me of Jackie's impairment, I mandated Jackie take an immediate drug test.

 

I don't think those kind of statements would end well for Gloria.  She would be admitting to a lot of bad acts. 

 

 

As someone else pointed out, even with the nonsense that the writers put forward, Gloria didn't dig up dirt on Jackie - she used only what she knew firsthand from Jackie's on-the-job needs (i.e., constantly needing to beg off for an hour or afternoon to attend to her family, her rehab, what have you).

 

This feels like a distinction without a difference.  I don't know if Gloria is somehow seen in a better light because she's betraying Jackie's confidences regarding her failed marriage and children, rather than searching public records for dirt. 

 

 

What Jackie's lawyer did was unprecedented and would not happen in a hearing like that; he was behaving like a trial lawyer, and this was not a trial. If a party in Jackie's position felt aggrieved by the outcome or the information presented by the supervisor, they could pursue civil remedies through the courts.

 

It's not unprecedented at all.  Administrative hearings can be very nasty affairs, and often can operate as mini-trials (similar to a trial, but in a condensed format).  I've sat through these hearings, and while they obviously rarely have drama worthy of a tv show, you certainly have witnesses there to present testimony, lawyers will question the witnesses, an ALJ, neutral or panel might take notes and ask questions and evidence will be submitted. 

Edited June 18, 2015 by txhorns79

[Dobian]

 

I mean, the writers didn't present a hearing as it actually would have happened because it was a slam-dunk for Gloria, both upholding the termination and the board not reinstating Jackie's license.

 

You're right, the writers completely manipulated events to stay on their narrative of Jackie getting her license back.  The whole escapade with the suitcase full of drugs in Jackie's car and the excuse that she was taking them to hurricane relief would have been so easily disproven.  And Jackie and Gloria can sling accusations at each other all they want, that doesn't change the facts of the case.  Jackie never would have gotten her license back in a million years at a real hearing.  The other annoying thing the writers do is to enable Jackie and their narrative by falsely making it look like she's really turning it around but circumstances aren't being fair to her.  Like her putting the pill in her mouth to save Eddie, so we're supposed to think it's okay for Zoey to fake the screening because of this.  No, it's not.  I've never seen writing like this on a show, where they just keep distorting everything to fit their own reality for this character.

[Trillian]

I am so confused - which is my way of saying that I think the writers are confused. It seems to me that they've conflated three different legal proceedings into a clustered mess.

First, there are the criminal charges, which super-lawyer magically made disappear. Then, there's the wrongful dismissal matter, also magically resolved in record time (I want to practice law in this jurisdiction where things happen with the speed of light!). Finally, there's the nursing licence issue in this last episode.

I don't get why the resolution of the criminal charges and/or the nursing licence should automatically mean that Jackie gets her job back. Shouldn't these issues have been decided in three different courts/tribunals? I can't imagine how the Nursing Board has any power to order the hospital to take her back. The hospital is an independent legal entity that would be subject to its Board of Directors and state law. Shouldn't the Nursing Board only have authority over nurses? And even though Gloria's a nurse, she's not before the Board as a nurse per se, but as a witness. The hospital has plenty of reason to fire Jackie for breach of the hospital rules and that could be fought out in civil courts, not in the criminal courts or before the Nursing Board.

I've prosecuted disciplinary proceedings, (actually, it just dawned on me that there was no prosecutor or Board counsel before the Nursing Board. Just a free-for-all. Another oddity) and yes, the defence would challenge the credibility of witnesses. But challenging credibility or bias doesn't involve shouting out personal information across the room, to be taken immediately as gospel truth. There would be testimony and cross-examination and a ruling as to why Gloria's son's issue was relevant. Plus, presumably the Nursing Board appointed - or at least accepted - Gloria to act as her supervisor (although that brings up the question again of why the hospital would have had to accept the job of supervising her), so presumably they started off having some faith in what she had to say.

I know I practise in a different jurisdiction, but don't tell me New York law is *that* different. And I know it's a show about nursing and not law, but come on, people. This is pretty basic stuff.

[txhorns79]

I don't get why the resolution of the criminal charges and/or the nursing licence should automatically mean that Jackie gets her job back.

 

If I remember right, Gloria had legitimate reasons to fire Jackie, and Jackie's lawyer told her it would be difficult for him to save her job.  However, Jackie essentially manipulated Gloria into calling Jackie out, in a very public way, about some of her personal issues.  Her lawyer then used that event as leverage to save Jackie's job, with the provision that she go into diversion (which included temporarily taking the janitorial position, having her salary cut to 1/3 of its normal rate, etc.)  When Jackie got her license back, diversion was over and she would return to her normal nursing position.        

 

 

But challenging credibility or bias doesn't involve shouting out personal information across the room, to be taken immediately as gospel truth.

 

I agree with that.  Gloria wouldn't be shouting things about Jackie's marriage or her daughters and the lawyer would have framed the questions regarding Gloria and her past experiences with addiction differently. 

Edited June 19, 2015 by txhorns79

[dangwoodchucks]

Gloria was aware that Jackie had some sort of deal with the Norwegian. She brought it up to Jackie as "I heard a curious rumor..." prior to the hearing. First, it wasn't a rumor since the Norwegian was the one Gloria heard say it. Second, if I was her I would've been all over the Norwegian trying to find out what the deal was. Bringing that issue into the hearing, or even having the Norwegian (I can't stand him and it's a stupid storyline so I refuse to learn his name) come in would have been awesome. There has to be some reason story wise for letting Gloria hear that, right? Or was it just something else to give us hope that Jackie would be caught and not get her license back?

 

Maybe all of the lucky, and unrealistic, breaks Jackie has been getting this season are building up to a huge fall for her. *she said hopefully*

[txhorns79]

Maybe all of the lucky, and unrealistic, breaks Jackie has been getting this season are building up to a huge fall for her. *she said hopefully*

 

I kind of felt like everything that happened last season would have led to a huge fall for Jackie, and nothing really panned out.  I mean, I don't need the show to end with Jackie punished for her various misdeeds, because life doesn't work that way, but it's extraordinary that she never suffers the consequences of her actions for all that long.  

[albaniantv]

For me, the show's tone and texture changed abruptly when Eve Best left to return to England. As a medical professional and Jackie's best friend, she bridged the tense work situation and chaotic home life. Jackie cared about and respected her even if as an addict, she lied to her regularly and abused the friendship. 

 

When she left, it seems to me that Jackie's world gradually disintegrated. The characters around her in the hospital, the cartoonish doctors looking for empty rooms to screw in, Eddie worming his way into her life everytime there was an opportunity, the drug dealers who eventually started connecting with Grace--all of this behavior or as the showrunner calls it, "comedy", escalated after the Britexit. Gloria couldn't hold it all together on her own -- the hospital and Jackie. Jackie started making more and bigger mistakes, breaking up with the caring cop who perhaps could have been her rock, slipping deeper into drugland, culminating in being publicly thrown out of her ex-husband's wedding. If I remember correctly, this was the tipping point that lost her the right to have the girls stay with her.

 

So, while I think the writers are being careful to show us every twist and turn of this downward spiral, it feels like there is more to come. I don't feel anything quite as gloomy as death, but I canimagine Jackie getting violent with the Swede when she realizes the full impact of his alerting the police. Maybe she ends up back in jail, on her way to prison? That would be dire enough!

[LuciaMia]

Despite Grace's apparent turnaround (excellent student, college scholarships, checking out schools on her own) I have a nagging feeling something bad is going to happen to her before the show's end.

[Cramps]

Hatchet girl - those aren't drug Beagles- the dogs job is to smell for people bringing food into US airports.