 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vegesina v. Allied Informatics10/2/2002
Following a bench trial, Ravikanth Vegesina appeals from the trial court's order finding that he breached an employment agreement with Allied Informatics, Inc. ("Allied"), and denying his counterclaim for alleged violations of federal law. He claims on appeal that (1) the trial court erred by failing to conclude that the employment agreement was void after declaring that the liquidated damages provisions of the contract were unenforceable and (2) the trial court erred in its application of federal law regarding an employer's obligation to pay an H-1B nonimmigrant employee's salary during the period when the employee is available for work. We discern no error and affirm.
The record reveals that Vegesina came to the United States from India on June 10, 1998, on an H-1B nonimmigrant visa. Allied was Vegesina's sponsor. In a letter dated May 8, 1998, which Vegesina read and signed, Allied informed Vegesina that the starting date for his employment with Allied would be on June 29, 1998, and he would be paid a salary of $44,000 per year. On June 27, 1998, Vegesina entered into an employment agreement and a non-compete agreement with Allied. The employment agreement contained a non-solicit provision and a provision that required Vegesina to give Allied thirty-days notice prior to terminating his employment with Allied. The non-compete agreement, and the notice and non-solicit provisions of the employment agreement, all contained liquidated damages clauses in the event of a breach by Vegesina. The employment agreement did not contain a severability clause.
Vegesina informed Allied in a letter dated February 7, 2000 that he would be resigning from the company on February 15, 2000 to pursue other opportunities. Following Vegesina's departure from Allied, Allied sued Vegesina for breach of contract, claiming, among other things, that Vegesina failed to give adequate notice prior to terminating his employment with Allied and that he violated the non-solicit provision of the employment agreement and violated the non-compete agreement. Allied requested liquidated damages and other damages pursuant to the contract and non-compete agreement.
Vegesina filed a counterclaim, alleging that Allied was obligated under federal law to pay him for the entire time that he was in the United States and available for work, and that Allied had failed to adequately pay him. Vegesina claimed that during his employment with Allied, his salary was increased to $58,000, and then reduced to $54,000, and that Allied failed to properly pay him under these new salary amounts. Vegesina admitted, however, that there was no formal contract regarding the details of his salary increases.
Vegesina moved for summary judgment, which the court denied. The court then held a bench trial, after which the court determined that it would now grant summary judgment to Vegesina on his claim that the liquidated damages clauses in the employment and non-compete agreements were unenforceable. Nevertheless, the court then ruled that Vegesina had still breached the employment agreement, and awarded nominal damages to Allied. The court found against Vegesina on his counterclaim. Vegesina appeals from this order.
1. Vegesina argues that the trial court erred by failing to conclude that the employment agreement was void after ruling that the liquidated damages provisions were unenforceable. He claims that, since the employment agreement does not contain a severability clause, it was impossible for the court to find that he breached the contract, as the allegedly breached provisions became void once the determination was made that the liquidated damages clauses were unenforceable. We disagree.
If a con
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|