June 18, 2010

Non-Compete Agreements in Atlanta – Level of Scrutiny Applied by Georgia Courts

In Atlanta, Georgia, non-compete agreements are generally analyzed the same, but differing levels of scrutiny can apply. The level of scrutiny is determined based on the circumstances surrounding the entry of the non-compete and the roles of the parties. There are two main types of non-competes in Georgia: those an employee enters into with his employer, and those a business seller enters into with a business buyer.

When an employee enters into a non-compete related to the term of his employment, such non-compete will be assessed using strict scrutiny. Beacon Security Technology, Inc. et. al v. Beasley, 286 Georgia Appeals at 12 (2007). This means that courts will not rewrite or strike portions of unreasonable non-competes related to employment, regardless of whether such contracts contain severability clauses. Ceramic v. Hizer, 242 Georgia Appeals 391, 394 (2000). Instead, the entire covenant will be stricken. This rejected principle is referred to as the “blue pencil theory of severability.” Id. These non-competes deal with employers who want to prevent employees from competing directly with them for a certain period of time after the termination of employment.

Non-competes that are “ancillary to a sale of business” may be blue penciled, and are analyzed using a lesser degree of scrutiny. Habif, Arogeti & Wynne, P.C. v. Baggett, 231 Georgia Appeals 289-290 (1998). This means that courts have much more freedom to uphold and actually edit these non-competes if they were incorrectly drafted in the first place. These types of non-competes usually deal with a business purchaser who wants to prevent the business seller from directly competing with the business he’s acquiring for a certain period of time.

Bookmark and Share

August 15, 2009

Georgia Sales Representative Statute: Legal Remedies When an Employer Refuses to Pay Commission

From time to time, we receive calls from Atlanta-based sales representatives with a variation of the following problem: Potential Client is employed by Company A, which manufactures a certain product. Potential Client’s job is to contact retailers to secure orders of Company A’s product, and Potential Client gets paid on commission based on the amount of Company A’s product that he sells. Potential Client secured such orders, and then was fired by Company A. Company A is refusing to pay the agreed upon commission for Potential Client’s sales work. What is Potential Client to do?

In this situation, the sales representative statutes in the Official Code of Georgia may be helpful. These statutes, located at O.C.G.A. 10-1-700, et seq., define the circumstances in which a former sales representative can file a lawsuit against a former employer for the amounts they are owed, plus double the amount that has been wrongfully withheld. In order to qualify to use the statute, a potential client must fall within the definition of a sales representative while his former employer must fall within the definition of a principal.

According to O.C.G.A. 10-1-700, a principal is a person or entity who (1) makes or distributes a product, (2) employs a sales representative to make sales of the product, and (3) pays the sales representative for his work at least partially on a commission basis. Though the title of this section refers to “out-of-state principals,” no such requirement is included in the definition of principal, and there does not appear to be any case law on this matter. A sales representative is a person who tries to obtain wholesale orders of the principal’s product based on his agreement with the principal to be paid at least partially on a commission basis. All of the elements of these definitions must be met. (Please visit http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp to read the full text of the definitions).

Continue reading "Georgia Sales Representative Statute: Legal Remedies When an Employer Refuses to Pay Commission" »

Bookmark and Share