UPDATE: The Supreme Court of Georgia overridden this decision on September 4, 2024.
* * *
Georgia's Court of Appeal has recently given important requirements for the non -scrub contracts according to Georgia's restrictive Covenants Act of Georgia in 2011. In North American Senior Benefits, LLC against Wimmer, 2023 WL 3963931 (GA CT. In the decision it was also stated that the courts at the discretion of the “Blue Pencil” (narrow/separator) have restrictive covenants in order to bring them into compliance with the Georgia law, a dish may not be a document that this material run missing can add a geographical restriction.
The decision of the Georgia Court of Appeal
Georgia's restrictive alliance law requires that restrictive alliances “time, geographical area and scope of prohibited activities” are appropriate. Some jurisdiction in Georgia had already found that this language required an explicit geographical restriction of the non-soles of employees, but so far no appellant in Georgia had addressed the problem.
At the moment, the plaintiff, an insurance marketing company, sued two former independent agents for violating their agent contracts. These contracts contained a non-calculation system that prohibited the agents two years after their termination to conquer an employee, an employee or an independent contractor of the company. The plaintiff claimed that the agents had violated this federal government by pounding his employees.
In 2022, judge Walter W. Davis from the country's regional court in Georgia refused to enforce the non-appointment of employees after employment, and found that it was not enforceable according to Georgia's restriction Covenants Act because it did not contain any geographical restriction. Judge Davis also rejected the “Blue Pencil” BUND to “Blue Pencil” in order to bring him to compliance with the restrictive federal law in Georgia. In order to make the provision from Blue Pencil, judge Davis said: The court rejected the plaintiff's claims in connection with the alleged violation of the non-calculation of the employees.
The NASB appealed and argued that the business court had “donated blue”. On June 13, 2023, the Georgia Court of Appeals confirmed the decision of judge Davis by shared decision. Georgia's Court of Appeal agreed that Georgia's restrictive law on the provisions of the employees do not expressly contain an express territorial limit and that a court must not write in this material term. While the geographical component is to be “read forgiving”, the court had to be present. Without a geographical restriction, according to the Court of Justice, a non-solid employee is invalid overall and cannot be enforced.
What does that mean for employers?
It is possible that the Supreme Court of Georgia Wimmer will override or that another appeal committee could make an opposite decision-the safe course for employers at this time is to include a geographical restriction of the provisions without recruitment that rules the law on a restrictive alliance. Employers should also consider changing existing provisions of the non-calculation width of the employees who lack a territorial restriction. On the current labor market, employers are increasingly needed to enforce such provisions. If Georgia's courts do not change the employee's non-calculation weapons provisions if this would require the addition of the material geographical term, an employer in Georgia is not gaining little to leave such unexpected provisions.
The case law in Georgia in relation to restrictive alliances after employment is complex, and many areas are open to interpretations or require further instructions. Employers should apply for legal advice on how the law of Georgia can apply to their specific circumstances.
