This appeal involves the enforceability of a restrictive covenant contained in an employment agreement. Kevin Waldeck and his current employer, Data Systems Inc. “DSI” appeal from the grant of interlocutory relief to Waldeck’s former employer, Curtis 1000, Inc. Waldeck worked as a sales representative for Curtis 1000, a business stationery and office supplies distributor. Waldeck was assigned a sales territory in the Columbus, Georgia area. During his employment at Curtis 1000, Waldeck signed an agreement which contained several restrictions on his post-employment activities. Under the terms of the contract, Waldeck agreed not to work in certain capacities in the Columbus, Georgia area for two years after leaving his employment with Curtis 1000. The non-solicitation covenant provides in pertinent part: C. The Sales Representative agrees that he will not , in the territory and with respect to the Accounts assigned to him, during the Relevant Time Period . . . ii actually effect the sale to any Customer Account of, or accept any offer from any Customer Account for, any product that is one of the Company’s Products or that is substantially similar to or competitive with any of the Company’s Products. Emphasis added. The term “territory” is defined in the agreement as “COLUMBUS, GEORGIA TERRITORY # 315 AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT ‘A.’ ” Exhibit A lists 26 Georgia counties and 2 Alabama counties. “ Customer Account” is defined as “any person, partnership, corporation or other entity who purchased the Company’s Products through or from the Sales Representative within the two year period preceding the Relevant Time Period. “Relevant Time Period” means “the period of time beginning on the day on which the Sales Representative’s employment with the Company terminated and running through the 730th day thereafter.”
After seventeen years at Curtis 1000, Waldeck resigned his position and immediately went to work for DSI, one of Curtis 1000′s competitors. Since DSI was in one of the proscribed counties, Curtis 1000 sued Waldeck and DSI for damages and injunctive relief, claiming breach of contract, unfair competition, tortious interference with contract, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Waldeck and DSI challenged, among other things, the enforceability of the restrictive covenant.
