A legal battle has unfolded in Ohio, where a former employee has been found in contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order related to the handling of confidential business information. Brett Combs filed a complaint against The Sherwin-Williams Company on February 2025, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, alleging multiple grievances including breach-of-contract and tortious interference. However, his case took a turn when he was held in contempt for not adhering to an agreement regarding proprietary information.
The dispute began when Combs, after being terminated from Sherwin-Williams, entered into an agreement that involved severance payments contingent upon his adherence to certain conditions. These conditions included safeguarding and returning work products and proprietary information. Sherwin-Williams accused Combs of breaching this agreement by posting sensitive company information on his personal website for financial gain. Despite demands from Sherwin-Williams to remove the information, Combs allegedly continued to make it publicly accessible.
Sherwin-Williams responded by filing a counterclaim against Combs, accusing him of misappropriating trade secrets under both state and federal law among other allegations. They sought legal remedies including a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent further dissemination of their confidential information. A status conference in April 2025 led to an agreed order requiring Combs to remove the disputed content from his website pending further settlement discussions.
However, when Combs failed to comply with this order, Sherwin-Williams moved for a contempt ruling. Despite several procedural maneuvers by Combs—including objections and claims that the court’s orders were unconstitutional—he was ultimately found in contempt. The court imposed sanctions on him for each day he remained non-compliant with the May 1st order.
Combs appealed the contempt finding, raising issues about due process and the validity of the initial court orders. He argued that the orders were vague and improperly delegated authority to Sherwin-Williams without proper judicial oversight. Nonetheless, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming that Combs had violated an agreed-upon order which was binding as both a contract and a judicial directive.
Representing himself pro se at various stages of the proceedings, Combs contended that his rights were infringed upon due process grounds but failed to convince the appellate judges who found no procedural violations in how he was treated during hearings.
This contentious case highlights complex issues surrounding employment agreements and intellectual property rights post-termination. It underscores how critical it is for parties involved in such disputes to adhere strictly to negotiated terms or face significant legal repercussions.
The attorneys involved include John Gerak and Jeffrey J. Moyle from Olgetree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart P.C., representing Sherwin-Williams while Brett Combs represented himself pro se at various points during litigation. The case was presided over by Judge Emanuella D. Groves along with Judges Lisa B. Forbes and Eileen A. Gallagher under Case No. CV-25-111649.
Source: 2026Ohio562_Combs_v_The_Sherwin_Williams_Company_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf