Georgia Law Non-Solicitation Agreements

The Tribunal then focused on the use of “geographic restriction” in the non-competitive part of the CAR and the absence of that concept in the non-invitation to the designation of clients as an additional justification for the requirement of a language defining the territory. “OCGA No. 13-8-53 (a) clearly states that non-competition prohibitions are permitted “as long as such restrictions are proportionate in time, space and extent.” As noted above, the same geographic restriction was excluded by OCGA No. 13-8-53 (b) with respect to non-appeal agreements.┬áThe Tribunal concluded: “As the non-competition treaty did not contain a reference to a territorial restriction, it did not comply with OCGA 13-8-53 (a) and therefore correctly found that it was non-applicable.” As noted in The Jackson Lewis Non-Compete Trade Secrets Report, Georgia passed laws regulating restrictive agreements on the May 11, 2011 agreement. However, this law does not address non-invitation (i.e. anti-pirating) agreements for workers, so the courts can apply the common law to such restrictions. Georgia`s common law can be confusing and even contradictory on certain issues, for example. B if an anti-piracy alliance is to be limited to a specific geographical area or to collaborators with whom the federal collaborator has been in contact. In a recent decision, the Georgia Court of Appeals for the Fourth Division addressed both issues, CMGRP, Inc. v.

Gallant, No. A17A1168 (Application Ga. Oct 4, 2017). Trujillo v. Great Southern Equipment Sales, LLC., was indicted by Great Southern against Trujillo, a former employee, for alleged violation of the restrictive agreements found in Trujillo`s employment contract with Great Southern. Great Southern, a company that had mostly offloaded from the sale of transportation equipment, put Trujillo as a salesman. In this role, Trujillo received workplace training from the President of Great Southern, lists of Great Southern customers and the introduction to many of the company`s customers and suppliers. Trujillo signed a “confidentiality and agreement agreement” with separate non-injunction and non-competition clauses. Two years after its shutdown, Trujillo resigned from its sales position. A few days after her resignation, she began working for a competing company. Great Southern was informed by several of its clients that Trujillo solicited her for the same type of business they had handled over Trujillo when she worked for Great Southern. Great Southern filed a complaint, and the next day, the court granted Great Southern`s request to sue Trujillo, which prevented it from competing with Great Southern and asked its customers.

After a formal hearing, the court found that the “confidentiality and agreement agreement” was enforceable and issued a referral order that prevented Trujillo from competing with Great Southern and recruiting its clients. The court also ordered Trujillo to return all the property of the Deep South in their possession. Great Southern argued that the additional language had not exaggerated the association of non-exhortation; Instead, the language merely repeated the worker`s separate contractual obligation to preserve the confidentiality of confidential information. However, the Court of Appeal objected and stated that the prohibition was not a repetition of the confidentiality clause, but rather “an attempt to unconscionably expand the class of clients that Trujillo could not request”. As a result, the Tribunal struck down the non-invitation contract as invalid. The effect of this attitude opened trujillo with a new form of relief.

Comments are closed.