Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians Med. Group, No. 12-16514 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a physician, filed an employment discrimination action against the California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (CEP) in state court. CEP removed the suit to federal court. Prior to trial, the parties agreed in writing to settle the case. The settlement agreement included a provision that Plaintiff waive his rights to employment with CEP or at any facility that CEP may own or with which it may contract in the future. Plaintiff refused to execute the written agreement and attempted to have it set aside. The district court ultimately ordered that the settlement be enforced and dismissed the case, concluding that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16600, which provides that a contract is void if it restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, did not apply because the no-employment provision in the settlement agreement did not constitute a covenant not to compete. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) the parties’ dispute regarding whether the no-employment provision voided the settlement agreement was ripe for review under the traditional ripeness standard; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by categorically excluding the settlement agreement from the ambit of 16600 solely on the ground that it did not constitute a covenant not to compete. Remanded.
Court Description: Settlement. The panel reversed the district court’s order that a settlement agreement be enforced in an employment discrimination action filed by a physician. The agreement included a provision that the physician waive his rights to employment with the defendant or at any facility that the defendant may own or with which it may contract in the future. The panel held that the parties’ private party contract dispute regarding whether the no-employment provision voided the settlement agreement was ripe for review under the traditional ripeness standard. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in holding that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600, which provides that a contract is void if it restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, did not apply solely because the no-employment provision in the settlement agreement did not constitute a covenant not to compete. The panel remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Dissenting, Judge Kozinski wrote that the settlement agreement was not void because the no-employment GOLDEN V. CAL. EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS 3 provision did not limit the physician’s current ability to practice his profession.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.