Suppose Rush decided to hand out business cards on his employer`s premises – before moving, that would be a big no. First, we assume that the measures are contrary to many provisions of their well-developed employment contract, including a non-invitation agreement and certain types of loyalty. Second, it is just bad. Most job movements like this are premeditated, but an employee can do certain things to make the move “clean.” It also means that current clients are not invited to a new job while you are still employed by the employer who can sue you. In other words, be smart. Don`t ask customers while they`re still busy, don`t take client lists and don`t take confidential/owner-keeping business secrets. When the two hairdressers and cosmetologists completed their work on April 13, 2010, they created a new salon in the off-limits department. It seems that Jon Scott has received an extraordinary amount of non-presentation and cancellations. During the initial trial, Jon Scott alleged a breach of contract, embezzlement of trade secrets and confidential information, theft, conversion and breach of loyalty obligation. The judge raised the case because of their unqualified work, but in the Court of Appeal, the judge said that the statute does not prohibit their responsibilities as an employment contract. The complaint will now return to court to decide whether the rags violated the non-compete agreement. Social media ownership – Many salons in the beauty industry now use Instagram as a way to market their services and often contain “before” and “after” photos of their customers. An employee contract should indicate who owns these images and what will happen to them when the employee who performed the work and/or posted the images leaves.
The hair salon is a good example. The show puts a lot of money into advertising. Customers tend to stay with a hairdresser they love, and that`s how the salon builds its clientele. However, if the hairdresser goes and starts working across the street, the investment in advertising will be lost at the salon, as customers go with the hairdresser, which is so easily accessible. But that doesn`t mean that the hairdresser who leaves can`t work as a hairdresser. On January 5, 2016, the Salon presented its case to the court, arguing that the stylist had “actively courted” salon clients. The Salon argued that the award of damages to the money was not, on its own, an appropriate remedy. The Salon insisted that the forbidden style stylist within a 10-mile radius would be offered a hair style and makeup services. Ms. Kennedy also submitted that The Shave had not borne its burden in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-8-55 of Section 13.C.G.A. in order to create legitimate business interests justifying the non-competition clause. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument.
Shave had sought an injunction to avoid the loss of the “customer`s goodwill.” The court found that The Shave had devoted considerable resources to developing its name recognition and client base. The Court of Appeal found that The Shave had legitimate business interests to protect itself from the risk of women.