A federal judge has thrown out Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare’s lawsuit accusing St. Louis-based Ascension of poaching its employees.
The judge ruled that the noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements at the center of the case cannot be enforced.
On Oct. 29, Judge Brantley Starr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted Ascension’s motion for summary judgment. He dismissed all of Tenet’s claims with prejudice, meaning they cannot refile.
Tenet sued Ascension in March 2024, alleging improperly recruited four of its employees, starting with Sally Hurt-Deitch, MSN, RN. She held several executive roles at Tenet, including group CEO over the mid-South region. She stepped down as CEO of St. Francis Hospital-Memphis in July 2021 and joined Ascension that October as senior vice president of operations. In March 2022, Ascension named her executive vice president of nursing and operations infrastructure.
Tenet’s remaining claims focused on Paula Phillips, its former vice president of workforce management and education, who had reported to Ms. Hurt-Deitch at Tenet Healthcare. Tenet alleged that Ms. Hurt-Deitch and Ascension recruited Ms. Phillips, and that Ms. Phillips and Ascension then recruited two of her direct reports.
Ms. Phillips’ agreement with Tenet barred her from doing the same work for 12 months after leaving. It also barred her from soliciting Tenet’s employees or interfering with its business for 12 months.
Ascension and Tenet are among the largest hospital systems in the U.S. Ascension has 91 wholly owned or consolidated hospitals, ownership interests in 27 partner hospitals and more than 300 ambulatory surgery centers across 36 states. Tenet operates 50 hospitals and about 640 outpatient care sites across 36 states.
Tenet’s claims were tortious interference, meaning intentionally disrupting another business’ finances, and civil conspiracy. The court found both agreements overbroad under Texas law:
- Noncompete: It had no geographic limit, and Tenet conceded that point. The court found that limiting it to hospital work was inadequate, because the restriction still reached clients and territories unrelated to Tenet’s business interests. “The non-compete is therefore overbroad and unenforceable as written,” Mr. Starr wrote.
- Nonsolicitation: It covered physicians, patients, customers and vendors, as well as employees. It also barred any conduct that could “disrupt, damage, impair or interfere with” Tenet’s business.
An unenforceable agreement cannot support a tortious interference claim. Without that, there was no underlying unlawful act for a civil conspiracy claim. The court did not decide whether Tenet suffered damages.
The ruling comes more than a year after the court let the case move forward. In August 2025, it denied Ascension’s motion to dismiss Tenet’s amended complaint.
Ascension and Tenet did not immediately respond to Becker’s requests for comment.
