When the employment relationship of an important employee ends, neither the employer, nor the worker (nor the worker`s new employer) should consider that a restrictive agreement is enforceable or unenforceable, but should engage a qualified lawyer. Litigation under the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act is likely to be very different from previous litigation, given that the new law promotes enforcement and allows the court to enter into agreements with a blue pencil in a manner that is reasonable and enforceable. In addition, the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act contains provisions that raise new issues and arguments in litigation, such as: whether a person is a « collaborator » within the meaning of O.C.G.A. 13-8-51 (5) (A); whether the Tribunal should amend the provisions by applying them in accordance with the O.C.G.A. ` 13-8-51 (11), (12) and 13-8-53 (d); and whether enforcement will impose a disproportionate financial burden on the worker O.C.G.A. ` 13-8-58 (d). The likely validity of an agreement depends largely on the analysis of state law, as it applies to the specific facts of your employer and the situation of your employer. If you keep in mind that the stakes are so high, if you have any doubts about an agreement, it would be advisable to consult a lawyer familiar with these types of agreements. False assumptions about the validity of the agreement could seriously harm your ability to work and cost you a lot of money, so you should exercise caution. The last area to consider when concluding a non-competition clause is the new confidentiality rules. Previously, Georgian law limited the duration of confidentiality rules.
If there were no time limit set by the provisions or if the confidentiality period was too long, the courts would not apply the provision. Under the new law, confidentiality rules remain valid as long as the information covered by the agreement remains a trade secret or must remain confidential for the success of the business. The Georgian Law on Compliance with Non-Competition Rules was recently dramatically amended following an amendment to the Georgian Constitution to allow the legislator to legislate on restrictive alliances. The new law, the new restrictive covenants Act, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 et seq., is in many respects much less favourable to workers than previous case-law and virtually denies more than a century of Georgian judicial participations which strongly oppose the application of non-competition rules (and other restrictive agreements) as contrary to public policy. The most notable change under the new law is that it allows the trial judge to modify « blue pencil » (i.e.) provisions of a restrictive pact that the judge declares too broad. This can be a major change for litigation. 12. I had a non-competitor in my job, but I was fired. Can you do it against me, even if they decided to fire me? The courts are very reluctant to impose a non-competition clause broad enough to prevent an employee from working. There are also courts that have relied on state constitutions to limit the ability of employers to prevent a worker from working. Before discussing the application of the non-competition clause in this case, the Court of Appeal assessed the nature of the worker`s activity.
Blair`s work required special training, but he « did not have the authority to hire or dismiss people. » Blair did not negotiate directly with clients or clients on behalf of his employer and « never been asked to make sales ». In addition, « he never received a list of customers. » In most states, the answer is yes. . . .
Trackbacks for this post