|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Report Link Georgia Court Limits Non-Solicitation Agreements.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - April 17, 2008 A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals concerning restrictive covenant agreements (such as non-compete agreements and non-solicitation of customer agreements), may make enforcement of even recently drafted agreements much more difficult. In light of this decision, it may be wise to consider revising your restrictive covenant agreements which apply to Georgia employees. Report Link Georgia Court of Appeals Reiterates Narrow Scope of Non-Solicitation Clauses.Ford & Harrison LLP - March 24, 2008 In a recent opinion, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s decision to uphold the validity of non-solicitation and non-compete clauses in an employment agreement. The appellate court’s reversal of the trial court decision was premised on a strict reading of Georgia case law that delineates the permissible scope of non-solicitation clauses. Report Link Georgia Court Rules On Enforceability Of Non-Compete.Ogletree Deakins - October 22, 2007 The Georgia Court of Appeals recently held that a covenant not to compete included in an employment agreement was unenforceable because it failed to specifically identify the post-employment activities in which the former employee could not engage. The court ruled that another provision of the employment agreement prohibiting the employee from terminating her employment for one year was valid, however, even though the agreement also specified that her employment was at-will. Avion Systems, Inc. v. Thompson, No. A07A1488, Georgia Court of Appeals (July 10, 2007). Report Link Restrictive Covenant Developments in 2006 - Georgia & Texas.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - January 04, 2007 In 2005, two Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisions validated a “race to the courthouse” approach in restrictive covenant litigation. As a result, employers seeking to enforce their restrictive covenants were confronted with additional strategic questions regarding the timing and venue of restrictive covenant litigation. In-house counsel were legitimately concerned about the possibility that in 2006 the courts would make it even more difficult for employers to protect their confidential information, customer relationships, and other proprietary interests. Surprisingly, 2006 brought some good news for employers in this arena. Even more surprising, however, were the sources of this good news – the Supreme Courts of Georgia and Texas. While neither venue is known for employer-friendly decisions in restrictive covenant litigation, they produced two significant victories for employers in 2006. Report Link Victory for Georgia Employers in Enforcing Non-Solicitation Covenants.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - June 06, 2006 In Palmer & Cay of Ga., Inc. v. Lockton Companies, Inc., the Supreme Court of Georgia recently held that a non-solicitation of customers provision is enforceable even though it is not limited to customers served by the employee within a specific time period prior to the employee’s termination. Report Link Georgia Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Nonsolicitation of Customers AgreementsFord & Harrison LLP - May 31, 2006 The Georgia Supreme Court has held that a nonsolicitation of customers provision in an employment agreement is not required to be limited to solicitation of customers served within a specific period of time before the employee's termination to be enforceable. The Court's decision in this case represents a departure from a line of recent cases that have refused to enforce nonsolicitation of customers provisions unless they are limited for a period of time before termination of employment (for example prohibit the employee from soliciting customers served during the two years preceding termination). Report Link Racing to the court house over non-competes (pdf).Littler Mendelson, P.C. - December 14, 2005 On November 15, 2005, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Manuel vs. Convergys ruled in favor of plaintiff, who had filed a declaratory judgment that his NCA was unenforceable under Georgia law. Plaintiff had accepted work in Georgia, resigned, then signed a lease and brought his action against his former employer - all within the space of 15 days. The court dismissing the employer's counterclaim of trade secret violations, applying employee-friendly Georgia law. Benson summarizes this latest development and provides recommendations for steps employers can take to protect themselves.
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 7NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION
Sacramento
July 8, 2008 Shaw Valenza LLPBenefits "Q And A": Get The Benefit From Our Benefits ExpertsEast Elmhurst
2008-7-8 Queens Chamber of CommercePREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB1825 COMPLIANCE)Eureka
July 10, 2008 Shaw ValenzaThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActNew London
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPThe Connecticut Sexual and Other Harassment Education and Training in the Workplace ActHartford
2008-7-16 Jackson Lewis LLPFree Lunchtime Webinar: Protecting Company Assets: Trade Secrets, Non-Competition, And The World Of Restrictive Covenants: Will The Courts Really Enforce These Agreements?Online
July 17, 2008 Fisher & PhillipsDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeMelville
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPDealing With HR Dilemmas In The Digital AgeIrving
2008-7-17 Jackson Lewis LLPComplimentary Breakfast Briefing for In-House Counsel, Senior Management and HR ProfessionalsMemphis
July 22, 2008 Ford & HarrisonInternal Influences /Protecting Your Workplace From Distraction And Destruction - Part IIRiverhead
2008-7-24 Jackson Lewis LLP |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2006 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds