[SOLVED] Kennedy v. Shave Barber Co. Court of

Kennedy v. Shave Barber Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 348 Guap. 298, 822 S.E.2d 606 (2018).
Background and Facts; Patricia Kennedy worked as a master barber for The Shave, a barbershop in the Virginia-Highland neighbourhood of Atlanta, Georgia. Under the terms of her employment contract, Kennedy agreed that, after leaving her employment, she would not work in the men’s grooming industry within a three-mile radius of The Shave for two years and would not solicit customers of The Shave for one year. Less than a month after quitting her position, Kennedy opened a new salon, “PK Does Hair,” two miles from The Shave. She solicited customers through social media accounts on which she posted photos originally posted on social media by The Shave. The photos were taken at The Shave of various Shave customers, whom she tagged in the posts. The Shave filed a suit in a Georgia state court against Kennedy, alleging a breach of the non-compete provision of her employment contract. Kennedy claimed, among other things, that the geographic restriction in the agreement was “unreasonable and uncertain.” The court limited the geographic scope of the provision to a three-mile radius of The Shave’s current location, and issued an injunction in The Shave’s favour. Kennedy appealed.
In the Language of the Court
GOBEIL, Judge.
Kennedy argues that the non-compete provision contained an unreasonable and uncertain geographic restriction. Most of The Shave’s customers live and work within three miles of its Virginia-Highland location. The Shave lost customers and its business suffered when two former employees of The Shave opened competing barbershops within three miles of The Shave. Based on the limited territorial restriction involved in the non-compete covenant, and the demonstrated harm if the covenant is not enforced, we find the geographic limitation in this case to be reasonable and that Kennedy had fair notice of this restriction.
Further, although The Shave currently operates only one location and has no immediate plans to open other locations, the trial court eliminated any uncertainty in the geographic scope of the non-compete by limiting the restricted area to a three-mile radius surrounding The Shave’s current location. Kennedy argues that The Shave failed to show that it had a legitimate business interest justifying the extent of the non-compete provision. We disagree. The Shave’s non-compete provision was supported by legitimate business interests in that it had devoted considerable resources to developing its name recognition and customer base. The Shave had a legitimate business interest in protecting itself from the risk that Kennedy might appropriate customers by taking advantage of the contacts developed while she worked at The Shave. [Emphasis added.]
Kennedy asserts that “using her social media accounts to post pictures of her work” and “tagging The Shave’s customers in pictures” posted to her social media accounts does not constitute solicitation. Many of Kennedy’s social media posts constituted customer solicitation. Kennedy was attempting to solicit clients with whom she had material contact during her employment with The Shave and that she met as a direct result of her employment with The Shave. These targeted posts and tags constituted solicitation. [Emphasis added.]
Decision and Remedy; A state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court’s order in favour of The Shave. “Kennedy is in violation of several of the restrictive covenants which were specifically designed to protect The Shave from competition from its former employees and loss of its client base.” The trial court’s modification of the noncompeting agreement to prohibit a former employee from operating a business within a three-mile radius was not unreasonable. “Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding the noncompeting enforceable against Kennedy and in granting [an injunction] on this ground.”
Critical Thinking
• Legal Environment: What “legitimate business interests” justify the enforcement of a noncompeting provision?
• Economic: What sort of harm, particularly in Kennedy’s situation, would support a court’s refusal to enforce an employment contract’s noncompeting provision?

Question: Kennedy v. Shave Barber Co. Court of