Larry Sitton was fired from his job after his employer discovered, from emails on the computer Sitton used at work, that he was taking part in a competing business on the side. After his discharge, Sitton sued his former employer, Print Direction, Inc. “PDI”, and its president and chief executive officer, William S. Stanton, Jr. collectively “appellees”, for invasion of privacy and for computer theft and trespass in violation of OCGA § 16-9-93.1 Appellees counterclaimed on several grounds. Following a two-day bench trial, the trial court entered judgment against Sitton and awarded appellees $39,257.71 in damages. Sitton appeals, contending that the trial court erred in rejecting his claims under OCGA § 16-9-93 and for common law invasion of privacy; in the admission of evidence; in finding for appellees on their counterclaim for breach of duty of loyalty; and in the calculation of damages. We affirm the judgment. “On appeal from the entry of judgment in a bench trial, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings of fact,”2 and we apply the following standard of review: factual findings made after a bench trial shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. OCGA § 9-11-52 a. The clearly erroneous test is the same as the any evidence rule. Thus, an appellate court will not disturb fact findings of a trial court if there is any evidence to sustain them.3 Properly viewed, the record reflects that PDI operated a commercial printing business and that Stanton was responsible for PDI’s operations. PDI hired Sitton as an exclusive outside sales person in January 2005 and employed him as an at-will employee until he was discharged in September 2008. As an outside sales person, Sitton sold PDI’s printing services and was required to bill all sales through PDI’s accounting department, in order for the commission to be shared between PDI and Sitton.
When he was first hired, Sitton received a copy of PDI’s Employee Manual, which provided that “employees may not take an outside job . . . with a customer or competitor of PDI.” Nonetheless, during his employment by PDI, and without informing PDI or Stanton, Sitton brokered more than $150,000 in print jobs through Superior Solutions Associates LLC “SSA”, a print brokerage business which Sitton’s wife started in October 2007 and of which Sitton served as manager. Sitton’s work for SSA was in competition with PDI and continued through the date of his discharge from PDI. By brokering print jobs through SSA, Sitton was able to keep all the profit on the job rather than share the profit with his employer, PDI.
