This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps hired D as general manager in January 2016. D was promoted in September 2016 to COO over Ds. He then executed two employment agreements as a condition of his continued employment and to reflect his new management role as COO, even though both agreements refer to him as “General Manager.” The agreements contained identical restrictive covenants that limited D's ability to solicit employees or customers, accept alternative employment, and also addressed his responsibilities regarding confidential information. D agreed that during the Employment Period, including any renewal thereof, and for a period of three (3) years from the date of termination of General Manager's employment, as the case may be, General Manager shall not, directly, or indirectly: a. solicit or approach any employees or customers of Employer or its affiliates or request any employees or customers of Employer or its affiliates to transfer employment or business from Employer or its affiliates to any other person, firm, partnership, corporation or other entity. b. solicit or approach, or accept, employment from any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other entity that competes with the business of Employer as of such date within 120 miles of Employer and affiliates thereof operate. In reference to confidential information: General Manager shall regard and preserve as confidential all Confidential Information pertaining to Employer's business … . General Manager shall not, without the prior written consent of Employer, use for his own benefit or purposes, or disclose to others, either during his employment or at any time thereafter, and except as required in connection with his employment with Employer, any Confidential Information connected with the business operations and developments of Employer. General Manager shall not, without such prior written consent, take or retain, or copy any Confidential Information of Employer. The agreements included choice-of-law clauses that stated the agreements would be “governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Florida applicable to contracts executed in and to be performed in that State.” In 2019, D's employment terminated with the Ps, and he subsequently accepted a role at Preston Cycles West, which was a competitor of Ps and their affiliates. Ps filed suit seeking temporary and permanent injunctions to enforce the restrictive covenants. The trial court applied Florida law and granted a temporary injunction enforcing the covenants. D appealed, asserting that because the enforcement of the restrictive covenants in P's employment agreements would contravene Georgia public policy, the trial court erred in applying Florida law.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.