## Facts

- Billy Harris worked for Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. under a written employment contract dated December 31, 1964.
- The contract contained restrictive covenants providing that, for two years immediately after termination “for any reason whatsoever,” Harris would not, directly or indirectly:
  - Call upon or solicit Orkin customers; or
  - Engage in the same exterminating/pest-control business within a designated area of Georgia where he had worked.
- Harris’s employment ended, and within the two-year period and within the restricted area, he began performing the same type of services and solicited Orkin customers.
- At the interlocutory hearing, it appeared without dispute that:
  - The parties had entered into the contract containing the restrictive covenants; and
  - Harris engaged in conduct prohibited by the covenants during the restricted time and in the restricted area.
- Orkin filed suit in the Superior Court seeking a restraining order and an interlocutory (temporary) injunction to stop Harris’s solicitation and competition pending final resolution.
- Harris defended on the ground that Orkin’s alleged failures under other parts of the contract relieved him of the restrictive covenants, including allegations that:
  - Orkin failed to pay certain compensation due (asserted as a failure of consideration);
  - Orkin attempted to force a new compensation arrangement and, when Harris refused, wrongfully terminated him; and
  - Orkin failed to provide promised instruction in “secret methods and means” of pest control, which Harris characterized as a material misrepresentation.
- The trial court vacated a previously entered restraining order, denied Orkin’s request for an interlocutory injunction, and refused to rule at that time on Orkin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- Orkin appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by denying an interlocutory injunction enforcing the noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants where the contract and the employee’s violations were undisputed, but the employee claimed the employer breached other contract duties (compensation, termination, training).
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to rule on Orkin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings before the time for filing defensive pleadings had expired.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the denial of the interlocutory injunction and directed that temporary injunctive relief be granted to enforce the restrictive covenants.
- The Court held that Harris’s allegations of Orkin’s breach (nonpayment, attempted compensation change and termination, failure to instruct) did not bar enforcement of the restrictive covenants at the interlocutory stage.
- The Court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to rule on the motion for judgment on the pleadings because the pleadings were not yet closed and the time for defensive pleadings had not expired.

## Legal Principles

- A noncompete and nonsolicitation agreement that has been held reasonable in time, territory, and scope under Georgia law may be enforced by interlocutory injunction when the employee’s violation is shown without dispute.
- Restrictive covenants may be treated as independent negative obligations; alleged breaches by the employer of other contract terms (such as compensation disputes, termination-related claims, or failure to provide training described in the agreement) do not, by themselves, defeat temporary enforcement of the covenants.
- Contract language extending the restriction for a stated period after termination “for any reason whatsoever” supports enforcement without requiring the court, at the interlocutory stage, to resolve fault for the termination.
- A motion for judgment on the pleadings is premature when the period for filing defensive pleadings has not run; a trial court may properly decline to rule until the pleadings are closed.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that Orkin was entitled to temporary injunctive relief because the restrictive covenants were valid and Harris’s competing and solicitation activities within the restricted time and area were undisputed, and Harris’s breach-based defenses did not prevent interlocutory enforcement; however, the trial court correctly delayed ruling on Orkin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings until the time for defensive pleadings expired.


Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Harris, 164 S.E.2d 727 (1968)