United States: "Hair" It Is – Another Non-Compete Decision From The Court Of Appeals

Last Updated: January 8 2019
Article by Neal F. Weinrich

This blog has closely watched case decisions related to Georgia's Restrictive Covenant Act (RCA), which was enacted in 2011 and substantially changed Georgia's non-compete law.  Until recently, there were no Georgia appellate court decisions interpreting the RCA.  Then in October, the Georgia Court of Appeals decided Carpetcare v. Carle, with a majority of the panel holding that a non-compete that does not have a geographical limitation is invalid.  Now, this past week, in Patricia Kennedy v. The Shave Barber Company, LLC, 2018 WL 6694822 (December 20, 2018), the Georgia Court of Appeals reviewed and upheld a trial court's injunction enforcing a hairdresser's three-mile post-termination non-compete.  The Shave involves a host of interesting issues, which we discuss below. 

In 2015, Ms. Kennedy began working for The Shave, a barbershop catering to males and located in the Virginia-Highlands, a trendy neighborhood in midtown Atlanta.  After several employees left and opened competing barbershops, the owner of The Shave required its hair stylists to sign employment agreements containing restrictive covenants.  Ms. Kennedy signed such an agreement in October 2016.  The non-compete in the agreement prohibited her from working in the men's grooming industry within a three-mile radius of any location of The Shave.  The agreement also contained a customer non-solicit prohibiting her from soliciting any customer or potential customer of The Shave with whom she had any personal contact or learned of or was introduced to during her employment.  Finally, the agreement contained an employee non-solicit prohibiting her from recruiting or soliciting any employee or agent of The Shave for any hair or grooming industry position within a three-mile radius of The Shave.

In December 2017, Ms. Kennedy resigned from The Shave.  She announced her resignation via social media by posting a photo of her work-station at The Shave.  Because she "tagged" The Shave in her post, her post appeared on The Shave's social media accounts.

She then opened her own salon, located 2.1 miles from The Shave.  She continued using the same social media accounts she used while employed with The Shave, and she re-posted photos taken at The Shave, tagging some of The Shave's customers in her posts.

The Shave filed a lawsuit and sought an injunction.  The trial court found the restrictive covenants in her agreement were reasonable and enforceable and enjoined her from owning, operating, promoting, selling for, soliciting for, consulting for, controlling, or participating in the ownership, operation, or management of a business selling or providing the services that are the same or similar to that provided by The Shave within a three-mile radius of The Shave.  The injunction also prohibited her from interfering with or soliciting or attempting to solicit any customer or potential customer of The Shave with whom she had any personal or material contact.  Finally, the injunction prohibited her from recruiting or soliciting or attempting to recruit or solicit any employee or agent of The Shave.

Ms. Kennedy appealed the trial court's injunction.  The Court of Appeals began its review of the injunction by noting that the General Assembly recognized in passing the RCA that "reasonable restrictive covenants contained in employment and commercial contracts serve the legitimate purpose of protecting legitimate business interests."  The Court of Appeals also noted the RCA's requirement that a court construe a restrictive covenant "to comport with the reasonable intent and expectations of the parties to the covenant and in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests established by the person seeking enforcement."  Finally, the Court of Appeals observed that the trial court has broad discretion in deciding whether equitable relief is warranted.

Ms. Kennedy raised several arguments for why the injunction enforcing her non-compete was erroneous.  Her first argument was that she was not an "employee" within the meaning of the RCA and was also not the type of employee against whom a non-compete is allowed under the RCA.  The RCA defines an employee as including any person "in possession of selective or specialized skills, learning, or abilities or customer contacts, customer information, or confidential information."  The RCA permits the enforcement of post-employment non-competes against employees who "customarily and regularly solicit for the employer customers or prospective customers."  The Court of Appeals found there was sufficient evidence that Ms. Kennedy was such an employee.  She regularly posted her work schedule and a link to The Shave's website to her social media accounts, encouraged clients and potential clients to patronize The Shave, posted photographs of services she provided at The Shave to her accounts, and directly mentioned and tagged The Shave in these posts.  She provided services to 230 repeat customers per month.  Given this evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Ms. Kennedy came within the definition of an "employee" under the RCA and was the type of employee who could be subject to a non-compete under the RCA. (To read about a case where a judge found an employee could not be subject to a non-compete under the RCA, click here).

Ms. Kennedy also challenged the reasonableness of the geographic restriction in her non-compete.  The evidence presented to the trial court showed that most of The Shave's customers live and work within three miles of its Virginia-Highlands location.  Although the non-compete applied within three miles of any The Shave location, The Shave operated only one location and had no plans to open other locations.  These facts, coupled with the trial court's decision to modify the non-compete to apply only to three miles from the Virginia-Highlands location and not any future locations, rendered the geographical restriction reasonable in the eyes of the Court of Appeals.

Ms. Kennedy also argued that The Shave had failed to carry its burden under O.C.G.A. section 13-8-55 to establish legitimate business interests justifying the non-compete.  The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, as well.  The Shave had sought an injunction to prevent the loss of "significant customer goodwill".  The trial court found that The Shave had devoted considerable resources to developing its name recognition and customer base.  The Court of Appeals found that The Shave had legitimate business interests in protecting itself from the risk that Ms. Kennedy might appropriate customers by taking advantage of the contacts she developed while working at The Shave.

Ms. Kennedy also argued that the scope of the non-compete was over-broad.  Under Georgia's old common law, covenants which prohibited an employee from working in "any capacity" were considered facially over broad and invalid.  Ms. Kennedy argued that the RCA maintains this limitation on non-competes and that her non-compete contained such an overbroad restriction.  The Court of Appeals did not decide whether the RCA permits an "any capacity" covenant.  Rather, the Court of Appeals found Ms. Kennedy's non-compete was not such a covenant because it only prohibited her from providing services that are the same or similar to those provided by The Shave.

Ms. Kennedy also challenged the portion of the injunction enforcing the customer non-solicitation covenant.  Specifically, she argued that using social media to post pictures of her work and tagging The Shave's customers in pictures does not constitute solicitation.  While the Court of Appeals specifically declined to decide whether more generalized social media posts constitute a solicitation, the Court of Appeals held that here, the evidence authorized a finding of solicitation, given that she had used social media during her employment to solicit customers and her posts were targeted toward informing her former clients that she was opening a new salon and was trying to solicit their business.  For example, in a post twelve days after her resignation, Ms. Kennedy implored existing clients to refer new clients in order to receive discounts.  The Court of Appeals concluded messaging of this nature went beyond a mere general "announcement" of a new position, which some courts have concluded does not constitute solicitation.

Finally, Ms. Kennedy argued that the trial court improperly balanced the harms in issuing the injunction, claiming that she would face bankruptcy and financial ruin if the injunction was upheld.  The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, pointing to portions of the record which showed that the trial court took Ms. Kennedy's situation into account in balancing the harms.  The Court of Appeals noted that the record supported a finding that The Shave stood to lose customer relationships and would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction stopping Ms. Kennedy from further violating her agreement was not entered.

When lawyers and others debate the pros and cons of using non-competes, a question that frequently enters the discussion is whether a hairdresser can be subject to a non-compete.  The answer, at least as to hairdressers in Georgia like Ms. Kennedy, appears to be yes.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions