Skip to main content

Great American Opportunities, Inc. v. Brad Patterson

Tenn. Ct. App.April 6, 2018No. M2016-02034-COA-R3-CV
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge John W. McClarty
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
bench trial

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Excerpt

This is a breach of contract action in which the plaintiff employer filed suit against its employee, claiming that he was liable for balances on his commission and sales accounts and for breach of loyalty pursuant to the terms of the employment agreement. Following a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the employee and ordered the employer to direct the redemption of his stock held in the parent company. We reverse, in part, and hold that the parent company is not obligated to redeem the stock and that the employer is entitled to $15,000 in damages for unearned compensation as a result of the employee's breach of loyalty. The court's judgment is affirmed in all other respects. We remand for the collection of attorney fees and costs.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** Great American Opportunities sued their former employee Brad Patterson, claiming he owed money on commission and sales accounts and had violated his duty of loyalty to the company under his employment contract. The company wanted Patterson to pay these debts. After a trial, the lower court sided with Patterson and even ordered the company to help him cash out stock he owned in the parent company. **What the court decided:** The appeals court partially reversed the lower court's decision. While the excerpt is incomplete, the appeals court found that the parent company was not required to redeem (buy back) Patterson's stock as the lower court had ordered. **Why this matters for workers:** This case highlights important issues around employment contracts and what happens when employer-employee relationships go sour. Workers should understand that employment agreements often contain terms about commission accounts, loyalty duties, and stock ownership that can lead to disputes after leaving a job. The case shows that courts will examine these contract terms carefully, and outcomes can vary between different court levels. Workers with complex employment agreements involving commissions or stock should be aware that legal disputes may arise and consider seeking legal guidance when questions occur.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.