Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart, s. S91A0056
| Decision Date | 27 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | S91X0057 and S91X0058,Nos. S91A0056,s. S91A0056 |
| Citation | 405 S.E.2d 253,261 Ga. 371 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 1991-1 Trade Cases P 69,470, 6 IER Cases 1000 JACKSON & COKER, INC. v. HART, et al. HART v. JACKSON & COKER, INC. et al. LINDSEY v. JACKSON & COKER, INC. et al. |
John L. Latham, Scott K. Tippett, Sylvia King Kochler, Trotter, Smith & Jacobs, P.C., Atlanta, for Jackson & Coker, Inc.
John E. Sacker, Robert S. Devins, Atlanta, for Hart, et al.
Donald J. Ellis, Atlanta, Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Seaton D. Purdom, Gambrell, Clarke, Anderson & Stolz, Robert C. Brazier, Brazier & Schwieger, Atlanta, for Hart and Lindsey.
William Scott Schulten, Schulten & Associates, Atlanta, for amicus appellant.
Mark S. Izenson, Atlanta.
E. Michael Ingram, Nat. Data Corp., Atlanta.
Appellees Hart and Lindsey are former employees of appellant Jackson & Coker, Inc., a physician placement service. Appellees entered into employment contracts with Jackson & Coker containing post-employment covenants not to compete. Subsequently appellees left the employment of Jackson & Coker and began working for a competitor. They filed this action for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that the covenants not to compete in their employment contracts are unenforceable and that OCGA § 13-8-2.1 (the Act) is unconstitutional insofar as it relates to restrictive covenants ancillary to employment contracts. Jackson & Coker counterclaimed to enjoin appellees from violating the covenants not to compete. Following a hearing, the trial court declared the Act unconstitutional finding that it violates 1983 Georgia Constitution, Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. V(c) which prohibits the legislature from authorizing contracts in general restraint of trade. Having reached this conclusion the trial court found it unnecessary to determine whether retrospective application of the Act would be unconstitutional. In Case No. S91A0056, Jackson & Coker appeal the trial court's determination that the Act is in general restraint of trade and therefore unconstitutional. In Cases Nos. S91X0057 and S91X0058, cross-appellants Lindsey and Hart argue that if the Act is found not to be in general restraint of trade, this court should hold that retrospective application of the Act to them would be unconstitutional.
The question in this case is whether or not the Act is contrary to Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. V(c) of the Constitution of Georgia of 1983, which is as follows:
The General Assembly shall not have the power to authorize any contract or agreement which may have the effect of or which is intended to have the effect of defeating or lessening competition, or encouraging a monopoly, which are hereby declared to be unlawful and void.
We hold that the Act is beyond the power of the General Assembly inasmuch as it is one that authorizes contracts and agreements which may have the effect of or which are intended to have the effect of defeating or lessening competition or encouraging monopoly.
Our basis for this conclusion is found in the express provisions of OCGA § 13-8-2.1(g)(1), which read as follows:
Every court of competent jurisdiction shall enforce through any appropriate remedy every contract in partial restraint of trade that is not against the policy of the law or otherwise unlawful. In the absence of extreme hardship on the part of the person or entity bound by such restraint, injunctive relief shall be presumed to be an appropriate remedy for the enforcement of the contracts described in subsections (b) through (d) of this Code section. If any portion of such restraint is against the policy of the law in any respect but such restraint, considered as a whole, is not so clearly unreasonable and overreaching in its terms as to be unconscionable, the court shall enforce so much of such restraint as it determines by a preponderance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hot Shot Kids Inc. v. Pervis (In re Pervis), Bankruptcy No. 10–75270–WLH.
...also forbade the state's legislature, the General Assembly, from authorizing restrictive covenants. See Jackson & Coker Inc. v. Hart, 261 Ga. 371, 405 S.E.2d 253, 254 (1991)”. Becham v. Synthes USA, 482 Fed.Appx. 387, 388 (11th Cir.2012). After the passage of a constitutional amendment, the......
-
Golden Rd. Motor Inn, Inc. v. Islam
...Ann. § 13–8–2.1 (1990), providing that courts must reform unlawful contracts, was held unconstitutional by Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart, 261 Ga. 371, 405 S.E.2d 253, 255 (1991). See Atlanta Bread Co. Int'l, Inc. v. Lupton–Smith, 285 Ga. 587, 679 S.E.2d 722, 724–25 (2009) (“[T]his Court has......
-
Crosby v. Hospital Authority of Valdosta
...receiving their power to monopolize from the state legislature, and has been used to strike down such laws. Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart, 261 Ga. 371, 405 S.E.2d 253 (1991) (striking down O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2.1 as unconstitutional). This constitutional argument is the linchpin of plaintiff's ......
-
Cox v. Healthcare
...also authorizing restrictive covenants “that restrain in a reasonable manner,” was declared unconstitutional in Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart, 261 Ga. 371, 405 S.E.2d 253 (1991). ...
-
Restrictions on Post-employment Competition by an Executive Under Georgia Law - Steven E. Harbour
...to modify and codify the law in Georgia concerning noncompete provisions in employment contracts. In Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart, 261 Ga. 371, 372, 405 S.E.2d 253, 254 (1991), the Georgia Supreme Court held that O.C.G.A. section 13-8-2.1 was unconstitutional as being in conflict with the ......
-
Georgia
...law, see J.E. Hanger, Inc. v. Scussel , 937 F. Supp. 1546 (M.D. Ala. 1996) (upholding a noncompete covenant under Georgia law). 35. 405 S.E.2d 253 (Ga. 1991) (striking down § 13-8-2.1, which attempted to authorize Georgia courts to “blue pencil” covenants that otherwise would be invalidated......
-
Labor and Employment Law
...& Revenues of Fulton Cnty. v. Davis, 213 Ga. 792, 793-94, 102 S.E.2d 180, 182-83 (1958)).108. Id. (citing Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart, 261 Ga. 371, 372, 405 S.E.2d 253, 254-55 (1991)).109. Id.110. Id.111. See Ga. H.R. Bill 30.112. Becham, 2012 WL 1994604, at *4; see also Ga. H.R. Bill 30 ......
-
Labor and Employment Law - W. Melvin Haas Iii, William M. Clifton Iii, and W. Jonathan Martin Ii
...activity, then all covenants not to compete within the same employment contract are unenforceable."). 10. Jackson & Coker, Inc. v. Hart, 261 Ga. 371, 372, 405 S.E.2d 253, 254 (1991) (invalidating O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2.1(g)(1) (Supp. 1990), repealed by Ga. H.R. Bill 173 at § 2, 2009 Ga. Laws at ......