Court Opinion

ID: 9851183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:08:35.207665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:50.658057
License: Public Domain

Hill, Presiding Justice,
concurring specially.
Under the strict interpretation of covenants against competition given by this court in prior cases, the trial court should be affirmed.1 The majority finds the employee’s misconduct significant, as shown by the majority opinion. I share that view and hence join in the judgment. If, on the other hand, the employee had been innocent of misconduct, I believe the outcome would have been different.
Thus, I believe we have introduced into the law of employee restrictive covenants a balancing test — the propriety or impropriety of the employee’s conduct weighed against the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the covenant against competition. However unpredictable and unmanageable this balancing test may prove to be in future cases, it is permissible in equity cases such as this.
A more manageable standard would be that a reasonable restrictive covenant be enforced against an employee who voluntarily leaves the employer to go into competition, but not be enforced against an employee discharged without good cause. The majority apparently opt for the less manageable balancing test. I concur in the judgment only.
I am authorized to state that Justice Gregory joins this concurring opinion.

Southeastern Beverage &c., Inc. v. Dillard, 233 Ga. 346 (211 SE2d 299) (1974), and cases cited there; C. V. Mosley Const. Co. v. McCuin, 238 Ga. 503 (233 SE2d 763) (1977).