No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Employer Total Play obtained a jury verdict for nominal damages on breach of non-compete covenants but prevailed only partially; employee Galloway secured directed verdicts on non-solicitation breach and compensatory damages claims. Court reversed and remanded the attorney fees award for further evidentiary proceedings to establish fees attributable solely to prevailing claims.
William Brent Galloway v. Total Play, LLC
What Happened
Employee William Brent Galloway had a dispute with his employer, Total Play, LLC, over the terms of his employment contract. The case involved claims that Galloway violated a non-compete agreement (a contract clause restricting where he could work after leaving) and a non-solicitation agreement (restricting whether he could recruit former coworkers).
What the Court Decided
The court's decision was mixed. A jury found that Total Play partially won on the non-compete violation but only received nominal damages (a very small symbolic award). Galloway won on the non-solicitation claim and on his request for compensation. The court also decided that the attorney fees award needed to be reconsidered, ordering further proceedings to determine which legal fees actually related to the claims Total Play actually won.
Why This Matters
This case shows that restrictive employment agreements have limits. Courts won't automatically enforce non-compete and non-solicitation clauses completely. Even when employers partially win, they may receive only minimal compensation. Additionally, the ruling clarifies that employers seeking legal fees must prove those fees connect directly to the specific claims they won.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.