Texas Judge Rejects Tenet’s Noncompete and Nonsolicitation Theories Against Ascension
A federal judge has wiped out Tenet Healthcare’s lawsuit against Ascension, holding that the restrictive covenants at the center of the dispute could not be enforced under Texas law. The decision lands as a full summary judgment win for Ascension and ends the case with prejudice, closing the door on refiling.
Judge Brantley Starr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted Ascension’s motion on Oct. 29. The ruling matters well beyond the two hospital giants because it draws a hard line around how far employers can stretch noncompete and nonsolicitation language when they try to protect executives, talent pipelines and market position. In healthcare, where leadership recruitment often crosses system lines, the enforceability of these agreements can determine whether a personnel move is a lawful transition or the basis for litigation.
Tenet filed suit in March 2024, accusing Ascension of improperly recruiting four employees. The dispute quickly narrowed around noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses tied to former Tenet executives and managers. At the center of the case was Sally Hurt-Deitch, MSN, RN, who had 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 promoted her to executive vice president of nursing and operations infrastructure.
The recruitment claims then expanded to Paula Phillips, Tenet’s former vice president of workforce management and education, who had reported to Hurt-Deitch at Tenet. Tenet alleged that Hurt-Deitch and Ascension recruited Phillips, and that Phillips and Ascension then recruited two of her direct reports. The company framed those moves as tortious interference and civil conspiracy, arguing that Ascension had crossed a legal boundary by drawing away personnel covered by restrictive covenants.
One sentence in the ruling captures the fatal flaw in Tenet’s case: the underlying agreements were too broad to survive scrutiny. The judge found the noncompete lacked a geographic limit, and Tenet conceded that point. Restricting Phillips from doing the same work for 12 months after leaving was not enough to save the provision, because the restraint still swept in clients and territories unrelated to Tenet’s legitimate business interests. The court held that the noncompete was overbroad and unenforceable as written.
The nonsolicitation language fared no better. It reached physicians, patients, customers, vendors and employees, and it barred any conduct that could “disrupt, damage, impair or interfere with” Tenet’s business. That sweep was broad enough to capture ordinary competitive behavior, not just targeted raiding of staff or direct solicitation. In practical terms, the clause did not carve out a narrow protective zone around confidential relationships or workforce stability; it tried to fence off an entire business perimeter.
Why the Contract Language Collapsed Under Texas Law
Texas courts allow certain restrictive covenants, but the restraints must be tied to a legitimate business interest and drafted with enough precision to avoid choking off ordinary competition. Here, the court found the language went too far. A noncompete with no geographic boundary can become a blunt instrument, especially when paired with a role-based restriction that is disconnected from specific markets or patient populations. In hospital administration, executives often move between systems that compete nationally for talent, service lines and strategic growth. Broad restraints can collide with that reality when they are written to block work far beyond the employer’s actual footprint.
The same problem infected the nonsolicitation clause. By reaching not only employees but also physicians, patients, customers and vendors, and by prohibiting conduct that could interfere with Tenet’s business in a general sense, the covenant attempted to control too much. A clause that expansive can function less like a shield and more like a market barrier. The judge concluded that the language could not be enforced as drafted.
The ruling also foreclosed Tenet’s tort theories. An unenforceable agreement cannot support a tortious interference claim, because there is no valid underlying contractual restraint for the defendant to disrupt. Once that foundation fell away, the civil conspiracy claim had nothing to stand on. The court did not decide whether Tenet suffered damages, because the case ended on enforceability and liability rather than injury quantification.
Litigation Narrowed to a Single Legal Fault Line
Tenet’s complaint had already survived one early challenge. In August 2025, the court denied Ascension’s motion to dismiss Tenet’s amended complaint, allowing the case to move forward into summary judgment. The later ruling shows how a case can survive an initial pleading-stage fight and still fail when the contract language is tested against the governing law and the actual scope of the restraint.
The dispute also reflects the scale of both systems. Ascension operates 91 wholly owned or consolidated hospitals, ownership interests in 27 partner hospitals and more than 300 ambulatory surgery centers across 36 states. Tenet runs 50 hospitals and about 640 outpatient care sites across 36 states. When systems of that size compete for senior leaders, workforce strategists and nursing executives, the terms of post-employment restrictions can shape how aggressively they recruit and how safely they transition leadership talent.
Here, the court answered that question in favor of mobility. The agreements were too broad, the tort claims could not stand without valid covenants, and the lawsuit ended with prejudice. Neither Ascension nor Tenet immediately responded to requests for comment.