I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but.... it seems to me that the determination that "Rendell said one thing but implied another to Morris" is a matter for a jury to decide, not the judge. I am further of the impression that in deciding on a motion for summary judgement, the court is obliged to assume that the evidence would be interpreted in a manner deleterious to the side seeking summary judgement. In the extant case, it would appear the judge did exactly the opposite.
And if I am correct about that, Don and Teri have grounds for appeal, and eventual overturning of the ruling.
Correct. Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is "no genuine issue of any material fact" (that's the expression from Federal Procedure rule 56), and therefore judgment can be rendered purely as a matter of law. The ruling in this case seems questionable, if there was a genuine factual issue about the intent of the teamsters. That's a classic jury question. Of course, if the plaintiffs have absolutely no evidence of intent, other than: "Well, everyone knows the teamsters are a pack of thugs," I can see some merit to the judge's thinking. I know nothing of this case except what I've seen here, so I'm just discussing the general principles involved.
I am further of the impression that in deciding on a motion for summary judgement, the court is obliged to assume that the evidence would be interpreted in a manner deleterious to the side seeking summary judgement.
No, that's the test for a motion to dismiss the complaint. If the complaint manages to state a cause of action, assuming its allegations can somehow be proven, then it won't be dismissed. This case obviously survived that phase.