26 years inside, no non-compete on file, and a printer log that triggered the lawsuit
A 26-year engineer jumped to a rival without a non-compete – and the Sixth Circuit just made it easier for his old employer to fight back.
PCC Airfoils, an Ohio company that makes industrial gas turbine airfoils, is trying to stop a former engineer from working at a direct competitor. On May 19, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed the company a procedural win that should matter to any employer thinking about how it handles senior departures.
The engineer at the center of the case is Justin Daugherty. He joined PCC in 1998 and spent 26 years there. In 2020 the company promoted him to director of engineering. A restructure the following year stripped him of the title and the responsibilities that came with it. According to the court, Daugherty was frustrated by the demotion and by the lack of promotional opportunities. When Consolidated Precision Products, one of PCC's competitors, offered him a director of engineering role, he accepted. He had no non-compete agreement with PCC.
After Daugherty resigned, PCC investigated his printing activity. The company identified four documents containing confidential information about its airfoils that Daugherty had potentially queued for printing in his last two days on the job. Forensic analysts could not confirm whether the documents were actually printed. PCC did not find them in the materials Daugherty left behind. The company concluded he had printed and taken trade secrets on his way out.
PCC sued Daugherty and his new employer under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act. It asked for a preliminary injunction to stop him from sharing trade secrets and from working on projects involving industrial gas turbine airfoils.
The district court turned the company down. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan ruled that PCC had not satisfied each of the four preliminary injunction factors by clear and convincing evidence – a high evidentiary bar drawn from earlier district court rulings.
The Sixth Circuit reversed. Chief Judge Sutton, writing for the panel, said the district court applied the wrong test. Federal courts deciding preliminary injunctions weigh four factors: how likely the plaintiff is to win at trial, the risk of irreparable harm without an injunction, the risk that an injunction will hurt others, and the broader public interest. Those factors are weighed together on a sliding scale. A strong showing on one factor can make up for a weaker showing on another. Plaintiffs do not need to clear a clear and convincing bar on every factor.
For HR leaders in the Sixth Circuit – Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee – the ruling lowers the procedural hurdle for employers seeking preliminary injunctions against departing employees suspected of walking off with trade secrets. That makes it easier, at least at the early stage, to get a court to step in while the underlying dispute plays out.
The case is also a quiet lesson in offboarding. PCC had no non-compete to lean on, so it leaned on trade secret law, confidentiality obligations and a forensic review of Daugherty's printing activity. Even with that audit in hand, the company could not confirm whether the documents were actually printed. That gap shows how much weight digital forensics, clear confidentiality terms and tight exit protocols carry when a senior employee leaves for a rival.
The Sixth Circuit did not decide whether Daugherty actually took trade secrets. It sent the case back to the district court to reconsider the injunction request under the correct standard.
