On April 13, 2015 we blogged about the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Golden v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, 782 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2015). There, the Ninth Circuit considered whether, under California law, an employee could be ordered to sign a settlement agreement that included language that restricted him, inter alia, from future employment with his former employer.
Dr. Golden is an emergency-room doctor who sued California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (“CEP”), among others, regarding his loss of staff membership at a medical facility. His lawsuit was based on various state and federal causes of action, including racial discrimination. The parties orally agreed in open court to settle the case and the settlement terms included “a substantial monetary amount,” dismissal of the action, a release of CEP and a waiver of any and all rights to employment with CEP or at any facility that CEP may own or with which it may contract in the future (the “no-employment provision”). Dr. Golden refused to sign the written agreement and attempted to have it set aside. His attorney moved the court to withdraw as counsel, moved the court to intervene and further moved the court to enforce the settlement agreement so he could collect his contingency fee. In further proceedings, a magistrate judge recommended that Dr. Golden be ordered to sign an amended agreement, and that recommendation was adopted by the district court judge who concluded the settlement agreement was not within the ambit of Business and Professions Code § 16600, which makes unlawful in California (with limited exceptions) any contract to the extent it restrains someone from engaging in a lawful trade, business or profession. Dr. Golden refused to sign the agreement and filed a notice of appeal.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s enforcement of the settlement agreement and remanded the case to the district court to determine whether a no employment provision in the agreement is a “restraint of substantial character” to the Plaintiff’s medical practice.
On remand, the district court again ordered Dr. Golden to sign the settlement agreement, concluding that the no-employment provision was not a restraint of substantial character. Dr. Golden again appealed.
In its July 24, 2018 decision, the Ninth Circuit surveyed California law and noted first that a contractual provision imposes a restraint of substantial character if it significantly or materially impedes a person’s lawful profession, trade, or business. The Ninth Circuit noted that a provision need not completely prohibit the business or professional activity at issue, nor need it be sufficient to dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in that activity. Rather, the “restraining effect must be significant enough that its enforcement would implicate the policies of open competition and employee mobility that animate Section 16600.” The Court noted that it “will be the rare contractual restraint whose effect is so insubstantial that it escapes scrutiny under Section 16600.”
Looking to the provision in the settlement agreement at issue, the Ninth Circuit noted that it impeded Dr. Golden’s ability to practice medicine in three ways.
First, the settlement agreement prohibited Dr. Golden from working or being reinstated at any facility owned or managed by CEP.
Second, the settlement agreement prohibited Dr. Golden from working at any CEP-contracted facility.
Third, the settlement agreement provided that if CEP contracts to provide services to, or acquires rights in a facility where Dr. Golden is currently working as an emergency room physician or hospitalist, CEP has the right to terminate his employment with no liability.
The Ninth Circuit held that the first provision, which barred Dr. Golden from future employment at facilities owned or managed by CEP did not impose a substantial restraint on his medical practice. The Ninth Circuit further held, however that the second and third provisions did substantially restrain Dr. Golden’s practice of medicine and were therefore barred by Section 16600. These two provisions limited employment with third parties based merely on whether CEP contracted with them. As a result, if Dr. Golden was employed by a hospital that later contracted with CEP to provide, for example, anesthesiology services, Dr. Golden would be ineligible for employment with the hospital.
Given the size of CEP’s business in California—it staffs 160 facilities in the state and handles between 25% and 30% of the state’s emergency room admissions, these provisions were a substantial restraint on Dr. Golden’s trade.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling may leave open whether a provision in a settlement agreement that permits an employer to terminate the employment of an employee where it acquires the employee’s new employer will pass muster under Section 16600. The provisions at issue in Golden were extremely broad: Plaintiff was prohibited from employment with entities with which CEP contracts to provide services to, or “acquires rights” in. A different, more limited provision that prohibited employment at entities as to which the employer acquires outright may be held not to impose a substantial restraint on trade. Further, the Ninth Circuit relied in part on CEP’s broad reach in the state of California. This leaves open that smaller employers may be able to impose restrictions that larger employers with more market share may not.