A dispute over the enforceability of a nationwide non-compete agreement and alleged interference with post-employment business relationships has led to a federal lawsuit involving a former marketing executive and an Ohio-based luxury RV company. The complaint was filed by Gray Scott in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 15, 2026, naming Ultimate Toys, Inc. as the defendant.
According to court documents, Gray Scott is seeking a declaratory judgment that would either invalidate an employment agreement’s non-compete clause or limit its geographic reach to within 50 miles of Ultimate Toys’ physical locations. The complaint also alleges tortious interference with business relationships—specifically relating to Scott’s consulting work after leaving the company—and breach of contract regarding unpaid paid time off.
The filing outlines that Scott began working for Ultimate Toys in April 2025 as Vice President of Marketing. He claims he was recruited under the impression that no non-compete would be required but was pressured three months into his employment to sign an agreement containing such a provision. The document states, “UTI has wielded an overly broad, nationwide non-compete clause that is not reasonably proportionate to the protection of legitimate business interests to harm Mr. Scott and destroy his business relationships.”
Scott alleges he was given only forty-eight hours to sign the employment agreement with the new restrictive covenant and asserts that he received no additional compensation for doing so. Section 7 of this agreement, according to the complaint, prevents him from working in his field anywhere in America for at least two years following termination.
During his tenure at Ultimate Toys, Scott claims he improved company operations through targeted digital marketing campaigns that increased monthly sales from 19 units to 40 units by year-end and boosted total revenues by 30 percent. However, he describes a deteriorating workplace environment attributed to conduct by company president Sam Harraz. This environment allegedly prompted Scott to give two months’ notice in November 2025.
The complaint further states that after announcing his intention to leave effective December 31, 2025, Scott was terminated on November 10, 2025. At separation, he alleges that promises made regarding payment for unused paid time off were not honored unless he agreed to additional conditions including signing another non-compete and releasing all claims against Ultimate Toys.
Following his departure from Ultimate Toys, Scott began consulting for Dave Arbogast Group in Troy, Ohio between January and March 2026. The suit claims that Ultimate Toys learned about this arrangement due to correspondence mistakenly sent to Scott’s old company email address. Subsequently, according to court filings, Ultimate Toys sent a demand letter threatening litigation against Arbogast if it continued its relationship with Scott—a move which allegedly led Arbogast to terminate its consulting contract with him.
Scott asserts that these actions caused significant financial harm: “UTI’s interference with Mr. Scott’s Arbogast work has caused Mr. Scott a substantial and ongoing harm,” estimating lost annual consulting fees between $150,000 and $250,000 per year.
In Count One of the complaint, Scott requests a judicial declaration stating that Section 7 of his employment agreement is unenforceable because it “unjustifiably bars Mr. Scott from working in all fifty states when UTI only has operations facilities in Ohio” and contains terms not narrowly tailored to protect any legitimate business interest possessed by UTI. Alternatively, he asks the court to modify (“blue-line”) the restriction so it applies only within a fifty-mile radius around UTI’s locations.
Count Two alleges tortious interference with business relationships based on communications sent by Ultimate Toys which purportedly led Arbogast Group to end its engagement with Scott out of concern for potential litigation risk.
Count Three concerns breach of contract regarding unpaid paid time off which had been promised upon separation but allegedly withheld unless further conditions were met.
The plaintiff seeks several forms of relief: declaratory judgment invalidating or limiting enforcement of the non-compete; damages including lost anticipated income from Arbogast Group; punitive damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; attorneys’ fees; costs; and any other relief deemed just by the court. The suit requests no less than $100,000 in damages related specifically to tortious interference claims.
Attorneys Christopher W. Tackett and Matthew R. Carpenter of Bailey Cavalieri LLC represent Gray Scott in this matter under case number 1:26-cv-00375-MWM.
Source: 126cv00375_Scott_v_Ultimate_Toys_Inc_Complaint_Southern_District_Ohio.pdf
