11th Circuit Court Rulings

Noncompete Valid if It Is Reasonable and Balanced

Although some state laws disfavor covenants not to compete in employment agreements, an agreement that reasonably balances the interests of the employee and the employer will be enforced, according to a recent decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court noted that, under Georgia law, a restrictive covenant ancillary to an employment agreement is deemed to be in partial restraint of trade and will be enforced only if it is reasonable, it is supported by consideration, it is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's interests and it does not unduly prejudice the interests of the public. The court observed that Georgia courts apply "strict scrutiny" to such covenants and insist on reasonable limits in three areas—duration, geographic territory and scope of activity. If any part of the noncompete or nonsolicitation covenant is found to be overbroad, both restrictive covenants will be deemed unenforceable.

Vague Job Threat Not Reasonably Perceived Violation

Reversing a magistrate judge's decision denying a Rule 50 motion by Walgreens against the Title VII retaliatory discharge claim of a black former pharmacist, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a single mention of "discrimination" in a letter the pharmacist gave management complaining about his boss did not constitute protected activity. The 11th Circuit held that the letter's complaint that his boss wrongly threatened that his "job was in jeopardy" because of a no call-no show several days earlier could not be a complaint based on an objectively reasonable belief that a Title VII violation had occurred. The mere statement that his job was in jeopardy did not amount to an adverse action, and Title VII prohibits only adverse action based on race. 

Termination for Misuse of Company Credit Card Was Not Pretext

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an insurance executive's age discrimination claim for his failure to rebut the employer's proffered reason for termination. The company articulated that it lawfully terminated the employee for giving his mistress a company gasoline credit card, which the appeals court found worthy of credence in lieu of the surrounding evidence in this case.