Attorney Matthew Trainor Gomes's Legal Cases

Employment and labor

Edward William Murphree and Flint Equipment Co. v. Yancey Bros. Co.

Sep 21, 2011

OUTCOME: Affirmed

My client's former salesperson and his new employer appealed the trial court's grant of an interlocutory injunction enforcing the former employee's covenant not to solicit customers contained in his em ... ployment contract (which we drafted). The defendants contended that the trial court erred in finding the restrictive covenant valid and enforceable. The Court of Appeals of Georgia rejected these arguments, finding that the covenant prohibited only the solicitation, diversion, or taking away of customers served or procured by the former employee, and that it was narrowly tailored to qualify the type of solicitation that was prohibited. As a result, the Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed the trial court's findings related to the restrictive covenant, as well as its grant of the interlocutory injunction against the defendants. 311 Ga. App. 744, 716 S.E.2d 824

Employment and labor

Ronald Winton Coppage v. James E. Bradshaw, Jr.

Oct 19, 2009

OUTCOME: Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted

A former insurance agent brought an action against my client, the president of his former employer, alleging that he was denied overtime compensation in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act. The co ... urt found that the plaintiff fell within the â€œadministrative employee exemptionâ€ from overtime requirement of FLSA, in that (1) he was compensated on salary basis, (2) his primary duty was management of the company's financial services business, and (3) he exercised the requisite discretion to qualify as exempt administrative employee. 665 F. Supp. 2d 1361

Employment and labor

Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Company of Atlanta, Inc. v. William Hugh Holley

Dec 02, 2008

OUTCOME: Affirmed

After the Court found the restrictive covenants in my client's employment agreement were overly broad and unenforceable as an illegal restraint of trade in a prior appeal, his former employer sought th ... e return of part of the consideration he received for the sale of his business under an unjust enrichment theory. The Court rejected this argument. "We hold that, in light of the illegal contract entered into by HRH, the trial court was correct not to invoke its equitable power and to instead leave HRH as it stood." In reaching this conclusion, the Court reiterated and reaffirmed a 56-year-old decision by the Supreme Court of Georgia: "[i]f [an] illegal contract be in part performed and money has been paid in pursuance of it, no action will lie to recover the money." 295 Ga. App. 54, 670 S.E.2d 874

Employment and labor

Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Company of Atlanta, Inc. v. William Hugh Holley

Mar 28, 2007

OUTCOME: Affirmed in part, reversed in part

The Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of my client, dismissing his former employer's claim that he breached his restrictive covenants. The plaintiff argued that the ... covenants part of a sale of business and should not have been subject to strict scrutiny. The Court rejected that argument, noting that the covenant not to compete in the sale document had expired, and that the covenants at issue in this case were different from that covenant and were contained in a separate employment agreement. "This Court has consistently held that when parties execute separate contracts for the seller's sale of the business and the seller's subsequent employment and each contract contains different restrictive covenants, the restrictive covenants in the employment contract are subject to strict scrutiny. We note that any statements to the contrary found in Annis v. Tomberlin & Shelnutt Assoc., are nonbinding dicta." (footnotes omitted). Since the covenant not to solicit precluded the defendant from â€œaccepting an entreatyâ€ from known or prospective customers, the Court found that it was overly broad and unenforceable, and that this rendered the non-compete and non-solicit covenants unenforceable. 284 Ga. App. 591, 644 S.E.2d 862

Matthew Trainor Gomes's Legal Cases (4)

Edward William Murphree and Flint Equipment Co. v. Yancey Bros. Co.

Ronald Winton Coppage v. James E. Bradshaw, Jr.

Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Company of Atlanta, Inc. v. William Hugh Holley

Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Company of Atlanta, Inc. v. William Hugh Holley