The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office has launched an investigation into the nonprofit health care system Aspirus St. Luke’s following employee complaints regarding the use of noncompete agreements. On October 16, 2023, the office issued a subpoena to Aspirus, seeking further details about these agreements that restrict employees from pursuing similar positions after leaving the organization.
Aspirus Health, which operates with a mission to “heal people, promote health, and strengthen communities,” expressed its commitment to cooperating with the investigation. “We look forward to working closely with the attorney general’s office to clarify any misunderstanding,” the organization stated in a recent release.
Minnesota outlawed noncompete agreements in 2023, but in Wisconsin, where Aspirus is based, such agreements are permissible provided they are reasonable in scope, duration, and geography, and protect a legitimate business interest. The legal landscape surrounding noncompete agreements is shifting as various states and the federal government consider new regulations.
Brian Evans, a representative from the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, emphasized the potential negative impact of overly broad noncompete clauses. “All too often, noncompete agreements are used to prevent workers from seeking new job opportunities that offer better pay and working conditions,” Evans stated. Attorney General Keith Ellison has encouraged individuals who believe they are subjected to unfair noncompete agreements to file complaints with his office.
Concerns about noncompete agreements are not limited to Aspirus. Several current and former employees of Essentia Health shared similar grievances, requesting anonymity due to fears of retaliation. While Evans refrained from confirming any complaints against Essentia, the issue of noncompete agreements appears to resonate across the health care sector.
Tara Richter, a former psychological assessor at Aspirus St. Luke’s Behavioral Health Clinic, worked there for nearly 12 years before establishing her own practice, Richter Scale Psychological Services. Richter noted significant changes in employee dynamics following Aspirus’s merger with St. Luke’s in February 2024. According to her, communication among staff became more “siloed,” and the reliance on temporary positions increased, limiting opportunities for permanent hires.
During her tenure, Richter recalled that a noncompete clause was enforced for psychologists, although it was later removed for that group. Yet, physicians remained bound by the agreement. “It inhibits professionals who have spent their lives doing this type of work,” Richter explained. She highlighted that many physicians have had to shift to unrelated fields due to these restrictions, exacerbating the shortage of mental health providers in a time of critical need.
Following her resignation on September 30, 2023, Richter faced challenges in accessing patient information, which left approximately 150 individuals waiting for psychological assessments, including autism evaluations and cognitive testing. She estimates that patient wait times for these services could reach up to two years. Aspirus has declined to comment on wait times or the specifics of patient care following her departure.
Richter also encountered difficulties when Aspirus refused to provide her credentials to health insurance providers, forcing her to operate solely on a private pay basis. Since her exit, two additional providers have left the mental health department, reducing the number of doctoral-level clinicians from eight to four. Richter lamented the ongoing trend of experienced professionals departing the organization and the region, stating, “A lot of the older, more mature or more long-term providers are leaving.”
Aspirus Health has not commented on updates to contracts or the status of noncompete agreements within their organization. The investigation by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office reflects a growing scrutiny of noncompete agreements and their implications for healthcare professionals and patients alike, raising important questions about access to care and the rights of employees in the evolving landscape of employment law.
