• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Bell Nunnally

News/Events

Alerts | February 24, 2026

Employer’s Prior Breach Bars Noncompete Damages

A recent federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case affirmed a jury verdict that an employer’s prior material breach of an employment contract excused an employee’s subsequent breach of a noncompete in the contract, Ramsey v. Sheet Pile, L.L.C., 130 F. 4th 193 (5th Cir. 2025).

Ramsey was hired as Sheet Pile’s CFO and signed an employment contract that contained a covenant not to compete in consideration of confidential information. After Ramsey went to work, Sheet Pile claimed it discovered various improprieties committed by Ramsey and terminated him and then refused to pay him his earned salary of $5,000.00.  After his termination, Ramsey formed his own consulting company, began to work with one of his employer’s competitors and sued Sheet Pile for his unpaid salary, a bonus and on a note Sheet Pile executed in his favor. Sheet Pile counterclaimed for breach of the employment agreement and sought damages not specified or discussed by the Fifth Circuit and injunctive relief to prohibit Ramsey from working for a competitor and from soliciting its customers and vendors. Sheet Pile later dropped those requests for injunctive relief but sought an injunction to compel Ramsey to return its confidential information.

The case was tried to a jury which found in favor Ramsey on his claim for unpaid salary and on the note. The jury also found that Ramsey breached his employment agreement but refused to find him liable because his duty to perform had been excused by Sheet Pile’s prior material breach of the employment contract. Under Texas law, when one party to a contract commits a material breach of that contract, the other party is excused from any obligation to perform. Hernandez v. Gulf Group Lloyds, 875 S.W. 2d 691, 692 (Tex. 1994). On appeal, Sheet Pile challenged the jury finding on prior material breach, arguing that the facts of the case were legally insufficient to support it. In analyzing the record, the Fifth Circuit found there was legally sufficient evidence to support  the verdict of a  prior material breach because after Sheet Pile failed to pay Ramsey his salary, he formed his consulting company and started working with Sheet Pile’s competitor, either of which action may have violated the Ramsey’s covenant not to compete in the employment contract. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment based on the jury’s verdict that a prior material breach by Sheet Pile excused Ramsey’s later breach of the contract and  rejected Sheet Pile’s argument that the evidence showed that Ramsey elected to treat the employment contract as continuing after his employer’s breach which can be fatal to the defense of prior material breach.

The trial court refused to grant Sheet Pile’s requested injunction for return of its confidential information because it had failed to show that the Ramsey was likely to disclose the information in the future. The Fifth Circuit found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction, especially since Sheet Pile did not raise in the trial court its argument on appeal that Ramsey admitted to retaining documents that contained confidential information. Since it remanded the case to the trial court on the issue of prejudgment interest on the note, the Fifth Circuit, without discussing the effect of Sheet Pile’s prior material breach, left it open to the trial court to consider on remand whether injunctive relief to return documents containing the information would be appropriate.

While we expect to see the issue of prior material breach raised in noncompete cases based on this opinion, this case should be instructive to employers. First, if the employer had included the noncompete in a confidentiality and nondisclosure agreement separate from the employment contract, then the employee should not have had a defense of prior material breach with respect to claims based on the noncompete since the non-payment of salary would have been related only to the employment contract. Second, even with the noncompete being in the employment agreement, the employer could have avoided the issue of prior material breach by paying the CFO his earned salary when it terminated him.

Primary Sidebar

Related Attorneys

  • Thomas L. Case

    Thomas L. Case

    Of Counsel

    tcase@bellnunnally.com
    214-740-1422

Related Practices

  • Labor and Employment
Stay in the know...
Don’t miss anything — Subscribe to our email list!
2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 1900, Dallas, Texas 75201 | 214.740.1400
© 2026 Bell Nunnally All Rights Reserved
  • Sitemap
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Client Pay
legalink logo Site by
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
Cookie SettingsAccept All
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • People
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • News/Events
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Clients
  • Careers
  • Client Pay