On April 4, 2025, the final day of Georgia’s legislative session, Governor Brian Kemp signed into law a “religious liberty” bill that will strengthen protections for the free exercise of religion by prohibiting state and local government actions that substantially burden religious practices or activities. However, Georgia lawmakers left on
Articles About Georgia Labor And Employment Law.
“In Any Capacity” Language Dooms Georgia Non-Compete Provision
struck down non-compete provisions that used “in any capacity language”, i.e., a non-compete that prohibited an employee from working for a competitor in any capacity and not limited to the services that the employee performed for his former employer. Recently, in All States AG Parts, LLC v. Herzig (February 2025), the Georgia Court of Appeals followed the pre-GRCA rationale and struck down what it deemed to be an overbroad non-compete.
Georgia Court’s Ruling on Rycroft Defense Signals Key Limitation for Employers
The Georgia Court of Appeals limited the application of the Rycroft defense, ruling an employer may waive the right to deny Workers’ Compensation benefits for a subsequent injury once they continue to employ a worker after learning of a prior undisclosed injury
Georgia Bill Introduced to Not Tax Overtime Compensation: 4 Employer Considerations
TakeawaysThe new bill is broader than the FLSA and, if passed, would apply to all businesses.The bill proposes a reporting requirement for all Georgia businesses.If the Georgia bill is passed, there may be greater incentive for employees to bring overtime claims under the FLSA.If the bill becomes law, there may be a tax incentive to switch some salaried employees to an hourly rate.Related link
Georgia As a Model Employer for Individuals with Disabilities
Georgia Senate Bill 384, signed into law this year, establishes the State of Georgia as a Model Employer (the “GAME”) Program.1 The GAME Program regulates labor practices of public offices related to the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of qualified individuals with disabilities.2 In creating the GAME Program, Georgia joins at least
Georgia High Court: Implicit Geographic Scope Sufficient for Valid Employee Non-Solicitation Covenant
The Georgia Supreme Court has held that employee non-solicitation provisions need not contain an express geographic restriction to be enforceable. North American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer, No. S23G1146 (Sept. 4, 2024). It also held that they must be reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances.
Georgia’s Restrictive Covenants Act Does Not Require That Restrictive Covenants Contain Express Geographic Restriction
In June 2023, the Georgia Court of Appeals held in North American Senior Benefits, LLC v. Wimmer that an employee non-solicitation covenant must contain an express geographic limitation to be enforceable.
Georgia Health Law Update: CON Reform
Weed at Work: Can Georgia Employers Still Drug Test?
Across the United States, a broad legal spectrum has developed regarding the use of marijuana, thus creating great uncertainty among employers that have long striven to maintain drug-free workplaces. Federally, marijuana still is classified as a prohibited Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act. In recent years, many states
Noncompete News: The Eleventh Circuit Addresses Georgia Noncompete Statute in “Sale of Business” Context
Prior to the enactment of the Georgia Restrictive Covenant Act (“RCA”), Georgia courts interpreted noncompete provisions entered into in the context of selling a business differently than they did between employers and employees. Indeed, under prior law, courts were allowed to “modify”—strike out and narrow, but not supply entirely missing terms—an otherwise overbroad noncompete in the “sale of business” context, but could not modify one in the employer-employee context.
Georgia Courts May Not Apply Foreign Law to Restrictive Covenants That Do Not Comply with the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act
On September 6, 2023, the Georgia Supreme Court reaffirmed that Georgia courts must first determine whether a restrictive covenant is enforceable under Georgia law before applying a foreign choice-of-law provision.
Noncompete News: The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same: Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Choice of Law Provisions in Noncompete Context
Historically, Georgia courts have declined to apply another state’s law to determine whether to enforce restrictive covenants against a Georgia employee, regardless of whether the agreement stated that another state’s law controlled (choice-of-law provision). So, too, Georgia’s law has long distinguished between restrictive covenants that are reasonable (in scope, duration, and geographic reach) and those that are unreasonable; the former are enforceable, while the latter are considered “in general restraint of trade.” Contracts that are “in general restraint of trade” are “deemed to be contrary to public policy” and “cannot be enforced” in Georgia. O.C.G.A. 13-8-2(a).
Georgia Appellate Court Says Employee Nonsolicitation Covenant Not Enforceable Without Express Geographic Limitation
In a recent decision, a Georgia appellate panel held that an employee nonsolicitation covenant that limits what parties can do following the end of a business relationship must have an explicit geographic limitation to be enforceable under state law.
Georgia Court of Appeals Invalidates Employee Non-Solicitation Provisions Without Geographic Limits
Amid the recent backlash to restrictive covenants across the country, a Georgia Court of Appeals has held that employee non-solicitation provisions must include a geographic limit to be enforceable. North American Senior Benefits v. Wimmer, No. A23A0162 (June 13, 2023).
Georgia Court of Appeals: Non-Solicitation-of-Employees Covenant Must Contain Express Geographic Limitation
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently provided important clarification of the requirements for non-recruitment covenants under Georgia’s 2011 Restrictive Covenants Act. In North American Senior Benefits, LLC v. Wimmer, 2023 WL 3963931 (Ga Ct. App. June 12, 2023), the court held that an employee non-solicitation provision must contain an