Coffee System of Atlanta v. Fox
176 S.E.2d 71, 226 Ga. 593, 1970 Ga. LEXIS 606 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A restrictive covenant in an employment contract is enforceable if it is reasonably limited in time, geographic territory, and scope of prohibited activity, such that it affords fair protection to the employer's interests without being unduly oppressive to the employee.
Facts:
- Coffee System of Atlanta employed Fox as a senior sales representative to sell its 'Coffee System' service.
- As a condition of employment, Fox signed a contract containing a restrictive covenant.
- The covenant prohibited Fox, for one year following termination, from soliciting or accepting orders for a business competitive with Coffee System within a 13-county territory.
- This restriction applied specifically to any individual or organization that had been a customer of Coffee System during the last two years of Fox's employment or had been actively solicited by the company.
Procedural Posture:
- Coffee System of Atlanta (plaintiff) sued Fox (defendant) in a Georgia trial court, seeking damages and an injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant.
- The trial court issued an ex parte temporary restraining order.
- At a subsequent hearing regarding a temporary injunction, defendant Fox filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- The trial court granted Fox's motion to dismiss, holding that the restrictive covenant was illegal, unenforceable, null, and void.
- Coffee System of Atlanta (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a restrictive covenant in an employment contract that prohibits an employee, for one year and within a 13-county area, from soliciting or accepting business from his former employer's recent customers or solicited prospects for a competitive service, constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade?
Opinions:
Majority - Hawes, Justice.
No, a restrictive covenant in an employment contract that prohibits an employee for one year and within a 13-county area from soliciting his former employer's recent customers is not an unreasonable restraint of trade. The court evaluates such covenants for reasonableness based on three elements: time, territory, and the scope of the prohibited activity. Here, the one-year time limitation and the 13-county territorial restriction are both reasonable. The scope of the activity is also reasonable because it does not prohibit the employee from accepting any employment with a competitor; rather, it narrowly proscribes soliciting or accepting business from the former employer's customer base. This type of restriction is not unduly oppressive but is a fair and necessary protection for the employer's legitimate business interests, specifically its customer relationships.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional three-part reasonableness test (time, territory, scope of activity) for evaluating non-compete agreements in Georgia. By upholding a covenant that restricted soliciting specific customers rather than banning all employment in the industry, the court provides a clearer safe harbor for employers seeking to protect their customer relationships. This signals that courts will enforce narrowly tailored covenants designed to protect legitimate business interests, so long as they are not blanket prohibitions on an employee's ability to work. The ruling emphasizes that the reasonableness of the scope of activity is a critical element, just as important as the time and territory limitations.
