In June 2023, the Georgia Court of Appeals in North American Senior Benefits, LLC against Wimmer that a non-soly federal officer must contain an express geographical restriction in order to be enforceable. On September 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of Georgia, however, returned the decision of the Georgia Court of Appeal and found that the Georgia-Restrictive Covenants Act (GRCA) does not restrict any restrictive Covenants that contain an express geographical restriction, but not with the employees. Appropriate in the geographical area.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia
In Georgia, the enforceability of restrictive alliances from the GRCA, OCGA § 13-8-50 ff. The GRCA stipulates that employment contracts that restrict the competition must be “temporally, geographical area and the scope of prohibited activities”. Ocga § 13-8-53 (a). (Different standards apply to the customer's non-solid and confidentiality bundles).
When evaluating the Georgia, who was questioned in Wimmer, the Georgia Court of Appeal decided that a restrictive covenant must be considered geographically appropriately, and must contain an express geographical restriction, and that a Georgia court may not add or add “blue-pentere” in this material term if there is no.
Georgia's Supreme Court has now not needed an express geographical restriction in the GRCA – and that a restrictive contract is not enforced per se because it does not include. The court found that “nothing in the text of [the GRCA] Mandates that a restrictive covenant contains an explicit geographical term, still does it [it] Prohibition that a federal territory is implicitly expressed. “
The court argued that the GRCA demands a restrictive covenant, geographically reasonable – including “sufficient description[ing]”And” appropriate announcement of the maximum appropriate scope of restraint “in order to demand an explicit geographical restriction,” Impos[e] A stricter standard than that of “The Grca. See Ocga §§ 13-8-53 (C) (1)-(2).
The court found that the underlying purpose of the GRCA was to codify a “more permissible and more flexible approach for restrictive alliances”, which strengthened its conclusion that a strict requirement for express language was not necessary.
Georgia's Supreme Court rejected the case to the court to determine whether the non-solicitation bundle in Wimmer is reasonable in the geographical area under the entirety of the circumstances. As the Supreme Court of Georgia's Supreme Court suggests, the court must, for example, determine whether the contract should be “regarded as a geographical area that is aligned with the current houses and employment locations of the covered employees” or whether it should be granted “global or universal effect”.
What does that mean for employers?
While the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia relates to the enforceability of a non-solicitation association for employees, its decision is not limited to this type of provision. In fact, the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia seems to be obtained not only for non-employees, but also for non-competition bundles in accordance with Section 13-853 (A) of the GRCA.
Nevertheless, employers should be considered to comply with express geographical restrictions on their employee-notching and non-competition bundles. In fact, the recommended way is to maximize the probability that a court in Georgia is geographically appropriate to accept an appropriate geographical restriction.
The jurisprudence in Georgia in relation to the resolved alliances are complex, and many areas are open to interpretations and/or require further instructions. Employers should apply for legal advice on how the law of Georgia can apply to their specific circumstances.
