Client Alert: What You Should Know About the New Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act

May 17th, 2011
Employment

Client Alert: New Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act Signed Into Law
 

2011 Georgia House Bill 30 (the “Bill”), designed to substantially reenact the substantive provisions of the new Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act (the “Act”) originally passed in 2009, is now law, codified at O.C.G.A.§13-8-50 et. seq.  The Bill passed the Georgia Legislature on April 12, 2011, and was signed into law by Governor Nathan Deal on May 11, 2011, immediately taking effect.  The Act dramatically changes the enforceability of restrictive

Read More


New Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act Signed into Law

The new GA Restrictive Covenants Act was signed into law on Wednesday, May 11, 2011. MMM Employment Partner, Jason D’Cruz, discusses the key changes to the law and what it means for you.

This information is presented for educational purposes and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Opinions expressed are those of the author and not of Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP; see disclaimer at http://www.www.mmmtechlaw.com/privacy-policy-and-disclaimer/. Contact Jason D’Cruz for more information at jdcruz@mmmlaw.com

Read More


Call to Action: Restrictive Covenants in Various Corporate Documents

Georgia House Bill 30, which would implement the new Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act (the “Act”), was passed by the Georgia House on February 22, 2011, and is expected to go to the Senate for a vote at some point in the near future.  If the Bill passes the Senate as expected, it will go into effect immediately when the Governor signs it, but will not retroactively apply to any contract signed before it takes effect.

Companies with employees in Georgia should consider the following:

  • Review your existing corporate and employment agreements

    Read More


New Georgia Restrictive Covenants Bill Passed by House

New Georgia Restrictive Covenants Bill Passed by House
House Bill 30, designed to substantially reenact the substantive provisions of the new Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act passed in 2009, was passed by the Georgia House of Representatives in a 104-58 vote on Tuesday, February 22, 2011.  The bill now moves to the Georgia Senate for consideration.

As discussed in earlier alerts, the new Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act (the “Act”), which dramatically changes the enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment agreements, was intended to take effect on November 3, 2010, immediately following Georgia voters’ ratification of a

Read More


Update: Georgia Restrictive Covenant Act

Update: Georgia Restrictive Covenant Act

The Georgia Legislature has taken its first step toward resolving constitutional questions regarding the new Georgia Restrictive Covenant Act (the “Act”).

As discussed in an earlier alert, the Act was intended to take effect on November 3, 2010, immediately following Georgia voters’ ratification of a Constitutional amendment designed to give effect to the Act. However, because the Constitutional amendment itself failed to include an effective date, the amendment did not take effect until January 1, 2011, two months after the Act. As a result, the Act was exposed to possible constitutional challenge, including questions as to

Read More


Unemployment Benefits Extended

January 5th, 2011
Employment
Unemployment Benefits Extended
The start of the New Year marks the implementation of a new federal tax bill signed by President Obama in December, which includes a 13-month extension for unemployment benefits.  However, eligibility to receive these extended benefits requires more than simply being out of a job; state unemployment rates and the duration of an individual’s unemployment factor in to who obtains the aid.

Extended benefits vary according to individual state unemployment rates.  In order to collect benefits for the maximum period of 99 weeks, the average

Read More



Do Not Implement New Restrictive Covenant Agreements: New Act Faces First Constitutional Challenge

Do Not Implement New Restrictive Covenant Agreements:
Georgia’s New Restrictive Covenants Act Faces First Constitutional Challenge

In a letter to the editor published in the November 10, 2010 issue of the Fulton County Daily Report, the Chairman of Georgia’s House Judiciary Committee identified an apparent legislative oversight that calls into question whether Georgia’s New Restrictive Covenants Act (the “Act”) is constitutional, or whether it is even currently in effect.

By its express terms, the Act was to take effect on November 3, 2010, immediately following Georgia voters’ ratification of an amendment to the Georgia Constitution required to render the Act constitutional.

Read More


Does Cold-Calling Curb Competition?

October 28th, 2010
Employment

Does Cold-Calling Curb Competition?

On September 24, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed suit against six high-tech companies – Adobe Systems, Apple, Google, Intel, Pixar, and Intuit – charging that their agreements to refrain from “cold calling” each other’s employees for employment are illegal under federal antitrust law.  The DOJ asserted that such non-solicitation agreements restrained competition for employees and likely deprived employees of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities.

The DOJ characterized non-solicitation agreements as “illegal per se,” or automatically illegal.  While the lawsuit focused on

Read More


New Legislation Changes Basic Employment Practices in Massachusetts

October 26th, 2010
Employment

New Legislation Changes Basic Employment Practices in Massachusetts
Employers must now affirmatively notify an employee within ten days of placing negative information in an employee’s personnel record.
Under the personnel records statute, a personnel record is broadly defined as “a record kept by an employer that identifies an employee, to the extent that the record is used or has been used, or may affect or be used relative to that employee’s qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation or disciplinary action.”  Read

Read More