The inevitable disclosure doctrine is a common law doctrine that has been used by some courts to prevent a former employee from working for a competitor, even in the absence of a non-compete, because the former employee’s new job duties would inevitably require him to rely upon, use or disclose his former employer’s trade secrets. This doctrine, however, remains the subject of considerable debate. Recently, the Georgia Supreme Court joined the debate in Holton v. Physician Oncology Services, LP, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 414 (May 6, 2013) and rejected the doctrine.
Articles About Georgia Labor And Employment Law.
The Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act – Two Years Later
As previously reported in a legal alert issued by Jackson Lewis on May 12, 2011, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act into law almost two years ago, on May 11, 2011. Since that time, many employers have required employees to sign new covenants that comply with the law.
Appeals Court Follows Supreme Court’s Arizona Decision In Ruling On Georgia Immigration Law
A federal appeals court in Atlanta has struck down portions of Georgia’s controversial “Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act” (H.B. 87) prohibiting the transportation, concealing, or harboring of illegal aliens. Relying heavily on the recent, highly publicized Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States, the Circuit Court found that Section 7 of the measure is preempted by federal law. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit also upheld another provision of the statute, Section 8, authorizing law enforcement officers to investigate a criminal suspect’s immigration status in certain circumstances. See Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, et al. v. Georgia, Case 11-13044 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2012).
Noncompete News – Eleventh Circuit Holds That RCA Does Not Apply to Non-Competes Signed Before May 11, 2012
Executive Summary: The Eleventh Circuit recently addressed one of the most confusing questions surrounding Georgia’s new Restrictive Covenant Act (RCA): did the law become effective on November 3, 2011, as the General Assembly intended, or did it become effective May 11, 2011, when the legislature reenacted the statute? In answer to this question, the Eleventh Circuit held unequivocally that the new law did not become effective until May 11, 2011. Accordingly, Georgia’s pre-existing law governing restrictive covenants applies to all non-compete agreements signed during the “gap period” between November 3, 2010 and May 11, 2011.
Garnishment Reform Comes to Georgia Businesses
Effective immediately, businesses in Georgia can save themselves the expense of using legal counsel to file routine garnishment answers. The new law, signed by Governor Nathan Deal on February 7, 2012, allows businesses to appoint an “authorized officer or employee†to file such answers and declares that such filing “shall not constitute the practice of law.†This reverses the Georgia Supreme Court’s 2011 decision that held that filing garnishment answers by a non-attorney is the unlicensed practice of law.
Georgia Supreme Court Rules Corporations Must Use an Attorney to Answer Garnishments
Georgia’s garnishment law places unique responsibilities on employers. They must serve and file an answer to the summons of garnishment at 30-day intervals throughout the life of a continuing garnishment, in addition to withholding and remitting a portion of the employee’s disposable earnings. Failure to file and serve these answers at any point can result in a default judgment and the employer becoming liable for the employee’s debt.
Peach State Pitfalls: Georgia Employers Must Now Use an Attorney to File Garnishment Answers
The Georgia Supreme Court recently changed the law by requiring employers to file answers in garnishment matters through an attorney. Though Georgia corporations are required to be represented by an attorney in courts other than magistrate courts, this rule has not typically been followed in answering summons of wage garnishments. Georgia employers often respond to these routine filings through payroll or human resources personnel without reliance on legal counsel. The supreme court’s decision means that employers continuing this practice risk having their answers rejected by the court or challenged by plaintiffs. Equally important, employers who now file in state or superior courts without attorneys will be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The ruling is effective immediately.
Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction to Block Parts of Georgia Immigration Law
Determining parts of Georgia’s new immigration law (HB 87) were preempted by federal law, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., issued a preliminary injunction against sections of the state law that allow police to question individuals about their immigration status and mandate sanctions for those who harbor or transport undocumented migrants. Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, et al. v. Deal, et al., No. 1:11-CV-1804-TWT (N.D. Ga. June 27, 2011). These sections were to take effect on July 1, 2011. The rest of the law’s provisions remain intact. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has vowed to appeal the ruling.
Georgia Governor Signs Sweeping Immigration Bill
Fulfilling a campaign promise, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has signed into law a sweeping immigration bill that will affect companies in Georgia that employ more than 10 full-time employees. The law, HB87, requires companies to register with the federal E-Verify program and check the legal status of new hires. It also creates the offense of “aggravated identity theft†for the use of false information. In addition, it allows the police to question individuals about their immigration status and mandates sanctions for those who harbor or transport undocumented migrants.
The Second Time is the Charm: Georgia Governor Signs New Restrictive Covenant Law
Last November, voters in Georgia approved a constitutional amendment to allow a new restrictive covenant law to take effect. There were several uncertainties regarding the enforcement and application of the new law. When the Georgia legislature opened in January 2011, new restrictive covenant legislation was introduced to fix these problems. That legislation was passed by the House and the Senate, and signed by Governor Nathan Deal on May 11, 2011. It governs restrictive covenant agreements signed after that date. An updated summary of the new law follows.
Georgia’s Sweeping Immigration Bill Goes to Governor
The Georgia state legislature passed immigrant legislation (HB87) on April 14, the final day of its 2011 session. Governor Nathan Deal is expected to sign the sweeping immigration bill into law as early as today. HB87 mandates that companies with more than 10 full-time employees register with the federal E-Verify program to check the legal status of new hires and creates the offense of “aggravated identity theft†for the use of false information. In addition, it allows the police to question individuals about their immigration status and mandates sanctions for those who harbor or transport undocumented migrants.
Debate Brewing on Effective Date of Georgia’s New Non-Compete Law.
Even though Georgia’s voter-approved constitutional amendment for a sweeping new restrictive covenant law said it would take effect upon ratification, a debate has been developing in the state over whether that is the effective date. (For more information on the new law, see our article, Georgia Voters Approve New, Employer-Friendly Non-Compete Law.)
Georgia Voters Approve New, Employer-Friendly Non-Compete Law
This Election Day, joining the majority of states, Georgia became a state where restrictive covenants should be regularly enforced. Voters in Georgia approved a constitutional amendment permitting a new restrictive covenant law to take effect immediately. The new law is a sweeping change for the state. For the first time, Georgia has a law that identifies specific language necessary for enforceability, identifies the types of individuals and entities that can be parties to covenants, allows courts to “blue pencil” covenants, creates an undue hardship exception to the enforcement of covenants, and removes time restrictions on the protection of confidential information.
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Broad Non-competition Covenant Signed in Sale of a Business in Georgia
While Georgia’s appellate courts generally disapprove of restrictive covenant agreements, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has reminded potential business buyers that Georgia courts will enforce broad restrictive covenant agreements when they are entered into ancillary to the sale of a business. Mohr et al. v. BNY Mellon, No. 10-11890 (11th Cir. 2010).