Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 20, 2018
An insurance company named as a garnishee in a garnishment action is not a “financial institution” under Georgia’s garnishment statute when the garnishment is seeking earnings owed to its current or former employees.
FordHarrison LLP • November 20, 2017
Executive Summary: Georgia’s recent Restrictive Covenant Act, enacted in 2011, does not directly address non-solicitation of employees a/k/a non-recruitment covenants, thereby leaving such provisions subject to the principles developed by courts through “common law” (i.e. case law). Because Georgia common law is not well developed on the requirements of employee non-solicitation covenants, employers often second guess the enforceability of such covenants. Fortunately, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently provided some clarification on these covenants in CMGRP, Inc. v. Gallant, No. A17A1168 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2017), where it made clear that non-solicitation of employees covenants do not require geographic or material contact limitations to be enforceable.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 19, 2017
As previously noted in Jackson Lewis’ Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Report, Georgia adopted legislation governing restrictive covenant agreements entered into on or after May 11, 2011.
FordHarrison LLP • July 12, 2017
Overview: On May 8, 2017, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed Senate Bill 201, now known as Act 203, into law. The law went into effect on July 1, 2017. In short, the new law requires covered employers, who provide paid sick leave to employees, to allow those employees to use some sick leave to care for immediate family members. The law does not create a new cause of action, which means an employee cannot bring a private suit against her or his employer under the new law.
Ogletree Deakins • June 30, 2017
Georgia’s Minimum Wage Law (O.C.G.A. § 34-4-1 et seq.) already prohibits local governments from requiring employers to pay employees a wage rate that exceeds what is required under state or federal law. This same law also prohibits local governments from requiring employers to provide employment benefits not otherwise required by state or federal law. And on May 8, 2017, Governor Nathan Deal signed a law that adds an amendment further prohibiting Georgia localities from passing “predictive scheduling” ordinances.
Ogletree Deakins • June 28, 2017
On May 8, 2017, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed into law the Family Care Act, a new statute requiring certain employers to allow their employees to use up to five days of their available paid sick leave to care for immediate family members. This new law takes effect on July 1, 2017. What follows are several important questions and answers regarding the Family Care Act’s requirements, as well as a number of key takeaways for employers.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • May 16, 2017
Beginning July 1, 2017, large employers in Georgia that offer paid sick leave will be required to permit their employees to use some of it to care for their immediate family members.
Fisher Phillips • May 15, 2017
Many workers in Georgia who receive sick leave from their employers will soon be entitled to use such leave to care for family members, thanks to a new law signed into effect by Governor Nathan Deal last week. The new law does not require Georgia employers to provide sick leave, rather it allows employees to use already earned sick leave for the care of immediate family members. Accordingly, it is not expected to add significant burdens to employers in the state.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 12, 2017
Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has signed into law a measure preempting any local wage laws or requirements that employers compensate employees for changes related to employee schedules. Act 221 (H.B. 243) continues Georgia’s tradition of promoting an employer-friendly environment, particularly for retail businesses and restaurants.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 06, 2017
Although Georgia’s Restrictive Covenants Act has been on the books since the spring of 2011, no judge has decided the exact scope of Georgia courts’ blue-penciling abilities – until now. In a case of first impression, Judge Thrash of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, in LifeBrite Laboratories, LLC v. Nina H. Cooksey, 1:15-cv-04309 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 9, 2016), held that the term “modify” in Georgia’s Restrictive Covenants Act limits blue-penciling to striking unreasonable restrictions and to narrowing overbroad, existing terms.