In the case Palmer & Cay, a court ruled that a noncompete agreement in Florida could potentially be unenforceable in Florida because of a decision made in a Georgia court. This seems unfair and conflicting with other court decisions. However, it’s possible that a Florida court could still have the final say on whether the Georgia decision should be followed in Florida. Keener worked for a company called Convergys in Ohio and signed a contract saying he wouldn’t work for a competitor if he left. After five years, he moved to Georgia and got a job with a different company that was a competitor of Convergys. When Convergys found out, they told his new employer about the contract and he got fired. Keener, a Georgia resident, sued Convergys in federal court in Georgia to stop them from enforcing a noncompete agreement. The court agreed with Keener and said the agreement couldn’t be enforced because it was too broad. Convergys appealed, and the Georgia Supreme Court said that Georgia law could be used to invalidate the noncompete if there were significant connections to Georgia. However, some justices thought a different rule would be better. In the case of Keener II, the court said that Georgia law could be used to enforce a noncompete agreement because Keener was living and working in Georgia. However, the court also said that Georgia’s laws can only be enforced within the state and not nationwide. The court ruled in favor of Keener, saying that the noncompete agreement was not enforceable and Keener should be able to work freely in Georgia. The court case involved two employees, Hostetler and Meathe, who left their jobs and started working for competitors. Their former employers tried to enforce non-compete agreements in different states. The courts made decisions about where the non-compete agreements could be enforced. Cerniglia said that if a noncompete agreement goes against Florida’s public policy, it’s not enforceable in Florida, but it might be okay in other places. In Keener, the court said the same thing for Georgia. In Hostetler, the court said the noncompete was void in Georgia and couldn’t be enforced anywhere. The Palmer & Cay decision might not change things too much. It just says that courts in one state shouldn’t try to control what happens in another state. If you’re a business in Florida, you might want to think about how employees could move to other states and make sure your contracts have the right rules for different places. For example, you might want to include where disputes should be resolved and what laws should apply. The company in the case made a mistake by giving up its right to have the case heard in New York. Employers sometimes send letters telling former employees to stop doing something before taking legal action. But sending too many letters might make the former employee go to court in a different place where the laws are better for them. Employers have to think about where they can go to court quickly to get a temporary order, and also where the laws are in their favor. They might end up in different courts for the same issue. They need to win in one court so the other courts will follow that decision. This means employers in Florida might have to fight hard in other states where the laws are not in their favor until they can get a final decision from a Florida court. On the other hand, employees and their new employers might try to go to court in a different state where the laws are better for them to avoid following an agreement from their previous job. The 11th Circuitâs initial opinion set the facts of the case. A federal district court in Georgia ruled that the noncompete contract was unenforceable, but the 11th Circuit disagreed. The court said that the issue of enforceability would depend on state law. The court also said that a federal court in Georgia couldn’t stop a separate legal case in Florida. The court sent the case back to the district court to figure out if the noncompete was enforceable under state law. The district court said that it was, and the 11th Circuit agreed. The court also said that the district court was allowed to decide on the case even though other issues still needed to be resolved. The court decided that the district court’s decision was final and could be reviewed. But the court also said that a final decision could cause as much trouble as an injunction. This means that just determining the rights of the parties could have the same effect as a formal order to stop something. The court also noted that a state can refuse to enforce a contract that goes against its public policy. And the court said that a decision on the merits of the case, not just a temporary decision, is entitled to being final and stopping future cases. Courtney B. Wilson and Donald W. Benson are lawyers at a law firm called Littler Mendelson. They both got their law degrees a long time ago. This column is written on behalf of the Labor and Employment Law Section. The section is chaired by Frank D. Kitchen and edited by Frank E. Brown. They want to teach their members about serving the public, improving how justice is carried out, and advancing the study of law.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/outrunning-contractual-noncompete-undertakings-does-the-11th-circuits-palmer-cay-decision-offer-earlybird-specials-for-florida-forum-shoppers/
Leave a Reply