Healthcare Law, Case Study Example

As healthcare becomes more complex, the legal issues surrounding it also grow in complexity. The importance of understanding health care law cannot be overestimated: it dictates the way healthcare can be delivered, managed, organized and structured and this effects everyone in society, whether they are in the healthcare professions or not.

Enforcement of a Covenant Not to Compete

Historically, covenants not to compete and contracts of a similar nature were barred under common law, because it was feared that such contracts would interfere with the individual’s right to earn a living to support himself.  However, many state laws with now enforce such contracts under certain circumstances.  In Sonotone Corp. v. Baldwin, the court found that “While the law frowns on unreasonable restrictions, it favors the enforcement of contracts intended to protect legitimate interests.  It is as much a matter of public concern to see that such engagements be observed as it is to frustrate oppressive ones” (Slaughter, 2013, p 1).

Court Decision in Example Case

In the case presented here, it could be argued that at least the first three requirements of the court have been met: the covenant was in writing; it was signed as part of the doctor’s employment contract and it could also be argued that the employer had a reasonable consideration to protect itself from competition with the doctor in the future.  However, where the case falls apart would be in the final two points.  It could well be argued that, since this physician was the only thoracic surgeon within a 90-mile radius of either practice that the geographical restriction of the covenant were not reasonable and would place an unfair burden upon him.  The strongest argument in this case, however, would be based on point five, that a contract is unenforceable because it goes against public policy, especially considering that the area in question is rural and likely to be underserved.  In a case similar to this one in Iredell Digestive Disease Clinic v. Petrozza, “even though the court could have found the scope of the agreement to be unreasonable, it instead ruled against it as unenforceable because it went against public policy, ‘ordering the covenanter to honor his contractual obligation would create a substantial question of potential harm to the public health” (Slaughter, 2013, p. 2).

Disparate Treatment Theory in the City of Cary Case

The case in the second example, involving the City of Cary and its hiring practices, is a case which largely involves the disparate treatment theory of the law. This is an important theory, and not only for healthcare law, and has its legal basis in Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In this, the Supreme Court states that “disparate treatment …is the most easily understood form of discrimination. The employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” (Moberly, 2006, p.89).  The fact that Mr. Imelda took the Civil Service exam and received the highest score on the written portion of the test could form a basis for arguing that Mr. Imelda was qualified for the position to which he applied, in spite of his heavy accent, and that all other things being equal, it was indeed his national origin which was the deciding factor in not hiring him.  This is known as a prima facie case, and is the basis for this kind of lawsuit (Practical Law, 2014, p. 5).

Mitigating Risk of Claims in Disparate Treatment Cases

Mitigating risk in cases of this kind, potentially involving the disparate treatment theory of the law, is very important for cities and municipalities.  In general, what such organizations can to minimize their risk is, firstly, to be aware of at least the basics of the myriad of laws which cover discrimination and hiring practices.  They should also have strong policies in place that prevent harassment/retaliation and promote equal opportunity employment.  They should also be able to respond promptly to complaints or queries by the EEOC.  (Practical Law, 2014, p. 12).

Legal Defenses Available to City of Cary

Historically, there have been several legal defenses available to employers in the situation that the city of Cary finds itself in, but most would not be applicable to this case. The best, though somewhat risky, defense for the city of Cary might be the Bona Fide Occupation Qualification (BFOQ), in which an employer makes out the case that its protected class preference is reasonably necessary to the operations of its business, as was argued successfully in Healey v. Southwood Psychiatric Hospital (1996).  However, this is considered a very narrow defense and can be used in cases of discrimination based on sex, national discrimination, or religion only under Title VII (Practical Law, 2014, p. 8).  The city of Cary could attempt to prove that the thickness of Mr. Imelda’s accent and difficulties of understanding him would indeed impair is ability to fulfill his job duties since so much of those duties entailed face to face or over the phone conversations.   This was, in fact, the case in Fragrante v. the City and County of Honolulu, where the court found that, “There is nothing improper about an employer making an honest assessment of the oral communication skills of a candidate for a job where such skills are reasonably required for job performance” (Savage, 2010, p. 1).

Conclusion

These two cases are good illustrations of the complexity of healthcare law and the wide range of issues they can encompass, issues ranging from contract law to laws protecting certain classes of people from employment discrimination.  However, these cases also illustrate how important a knowledge of the legal landscape of healthcare is, not only for those directly involved in the healthcare profession but for society at large.

References

Moberly, Michael. Reconsidering the Discriminatory Motive Requirement in ADEA Disparate Treatment Cases.  (2006). New Mexico Law Review. 24(3) 89-124

Practical Law.  Discrimination: An Overview.  (2014). Practical Law Website. Retrieved from http://us.practicallaw.com/3-503-3975

Savage, David. (2010). Refusal to Hire Heavily Accented Man is Legal: Supreme Court: A ruling that applicant who cannot clearly address the public may be rejected is let stand.  Los Angeles Times Online Website. Retrieved from www.latimes.com/1990-04-17/news/mn-1358_1_supreme-court

Slaughter, Jim.  Covenants Not to Compete Essentials.  (2014). Rossabi, Black and Slaughter Law Firm Website. Retrieved from www.lawfirmrbs.com/Convents-Not-to-CompeteEssentials.cfm