Here’s What Happened in the JGR vs. Chris Gabehart/Spire Lawsuit This Week (June 20-26)

The ongoing lawsuit between Joe Gibbs Racing vs Chris Gabehart and Spire Motorsports took on a new wrinkle this week involving counter-lawsuits filed by both Spire and Gabehart.

JGR filed the initial lawsuit against Gabehart in February, accusing their former crew chief-turned-Competition Director of misappropriating its confidential information and trade secrets. It later amended the complaint to include Spire, accusing the organization of inducing Gabehart to violate his noncompete covenant at JGR. Gabehart currently holds a role at Spire similar to what he was doing at JGR before choosing to leave the organization.

A trial for this case is now set for January 2027 in the Western District of North Carolina, with Judge Susan C. Rodriguez presiding.

Read all of Frontstretch’s content covering the JGR vs. Gabehart lawsuit here

Here’s the latest on the lawsuit from the week of June 20-26, 2026.

• Spire came out firing in its counterclaim, stating, “This is a team (JGR) that, unable to keep a rising competitor in its rearview mirror, turned to the courthouse in a futile effort to protect its long-dominant reign over the sport […] JGR has chosen to ignore its own behavior and blame everyone else for the position it finds itself in.”

• Spire proceeded to criticize JGR for the way it has developed Ty Gibbs, grandson of JGR owner Joe Gibbs, who ended up at the center of Gabehart’s accusations in his first response to JGR’s lawsuit in February.

• “JGR elevated nepotism over competitive excellence when it installed the grandson of JGR’s owner as the No. 54 car’s driver, instead of re-signing the driver that had won multiple Cup Series championships for JGR (Kyle Busch) — and the No. 54 car’s performance began to slip,” a statement read.

• Spire accused JGR of forcing its employees to treat Gibbs “with kid gloves,” and defended Gabehart’s decision to leave. “Christopher Gabehart … understandably didn’t want to babysit a neophyte driver, but quickly learned that was the role JGR expected him to take on,” Spire’s argument read.

• In the manner in which Gabehart departed JGR, Spire contested that he triggered a provision in his employee agreement that reduced his non-compete term from 18 months to one week, and that JGR acknowledged Gabehart should leave with the understanding he would seek a role that matched his experience and skills.

• Spire also responded to JGR’s repeated accusations that it has taken “shortcuts” and sped up its progress in the NASCAR Cup Series by encouraging Gabehart to share misappropriated trade secrets. Spire’s team maintained that its growth is a result of “significant financial investment, improved equipment, disciplined long-term planning, and the strategic recruitment and development of top-tier talent.”

• In continued attacks on the lawsuit’s merits, Spire accused JGR of “having trouble accepting Spire’s gains on the racetrack,” and that it regrets losing Gabehart to a rival competitor. The organization proceeded to accuse JGR of filing a lawsuit as a means to halt Spire’s growth.

• Spire maintained that it has not requested or used any of JGR’s confidential information and trade secrets, a position that Judge Rodriguez has aligned with to this point since no credible evidence has been presented by JGR that Spire has done so.

• In turn, Spire and Gabehart filed counterclaims against JGR.

• Once again, Gibbs was a central target in the opening paragraphs of Spire’s counterclaim, where the organization’s legal team alleged that tension had been growing at JGR over Gibbs’ performance during the 2025 season.

• Spire alleged that JGR employees “routinely criticized” Gibbs’ conduct and performance, and that JGR showed more leniency towards Gibbs compared to its other drivers.

• “In 2025, at least one JGR driver criticized JGR’s owners for giving preferential treatment to Ty Gibbs.”

• Spire claimed that JGR became aware it needed more experienced personnel, leading Spire to find out JGR was recruiting Robert Smith (one of Spire’s car chiefs at the time) to come be the car chief for the No. 54.

• “Smith was a high value employee with extensive knowledge of Spire’s race performance methods, race evaluation processes, racecar setups, and racing strategy because of his role as a car chief for Spire,” a paragraph read.

• Ultimately, Spire alleged that JGR solicited Smith through texts and phone calls from agents, and it requested and received a copy of Smith’s confidential agreement with Spire, as well as his compensation and bonus structure.

• JGR proceeded to offer Smith employment, which he accepted.

• Spire claimed it informed Smith was under a noncompete covenant that prohibited him from working for JGR until Nov. 25, 2025. However, JGR allegedly insisted on pursuing Smith.

• After a conversation with JGR, Dickerson understood that JGR agreed to a trade arrangement that would send Smith to JGR in exchange for a JGR employee of Spire’s choosing.

• After Gabehart ran the agreement by JGR’s leadership, he agreed to an implied trade contract. However, JGR requested that they retain the option to a $100,000 payment rather than release an employee, to which Spire agreed. Smith accepted the offer at JGR and began services for them in April 2025.

• Spire then accused JGR of using its confidential business information to make an offer to Smith.

• “At JGR, Smith performs the same duties, tasks, and services that he performed at Spire,” the counterclaim stated.

• Spire noted how the No. 54 car’s performance improved for the remainder of 2025 and into the 2026 season.

• In June 2025, Dickerson reached out to JGR to request that it release Tyler Allen, Gibbs’ former crew chief, so Spire could hire him. However, JGR refused.

• Allegedly, Dickerson inquired again last fall to request that JGR release one of its car chiefs, Ryan Towles, so that Spire could hire him. Once again, JGR refused.

• Spire alleged that JGR has yet to release an employee for reciprocal trade, nor has it paid Spire $100,000 in its place.

• The counterclaim also addressed a dinner meeting between Dickerson and Gabehart on Oct. 26, 2025, in which Gabehart expressed his growing frustration with his role at JGR.

• According to Spire, Gabehart was seeking a “new, different role” at JGR. At the same time, Dickerson supposedly was looking to create a position that would allow someone to take day-to-day responsibilities from Dickerson, including Spire’s business strategies and vision. In other words, Dickerson was seeking “an owner’s advocate.”

• Gabehart informed Dickerson in November that JGR had stopped paying him, leading Spire to understand the sides had separated, where they eventually hired Gabehart.

• Ultimately, Spire is seeking JGR’s claims against it to be dismissed, that the court rule in its favor for its counterclaims and that the court award Spire reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.

• Gabehart’s counterclaim primarily opened accusing JGR of using a “calculated campaign to punish a dedicated former employee for exercising his contractual rights.”

• Gabehart’s team alleged that he invoked a part of his employment agreement that demonstrated there were inconsistencies in his role compared to the job description. The allegation further stated that instead of resolving the issue, JGR took steps such as hiring a private investigator, halting payments to Gabehart and, ultimately, filing a lawsuit against him.

• The counterclaim accused JGR of “selective prosecution,” further stating, “JGR and other teams, including 23XI Racing and Legacy Motor Club, regularly exchange talent, and JGR has historically raised no objection when employees depart for these Toyota competitors—even though such teams compete directly against JGR on the track every week.”

• At the heart of Gabehart’s counterclaim is Section 6 of his employee agreement, which contains terms and restrictions for a noncompete period. However, the noncompete period is reduced to one week and a $100,000 payout for a mutual release if the employee presents inconsistencies in job duties, as well as if the employee provides 60 days for JGR to resolve the issue and 60 days prior written notice of termination without cause.

• According to the counterclaim, Gabehart met with Gibbs on Nov. 6, 2025 to express his frustration that the job was not what he was led to believe, as well as potentially reach a resolution. He also submitted a written letter detailing the areas he felt were inconsistent with the job description.

• While JGR lists Nov. 10, 2025 as Gabehart’s final day of employment, Gabehart alleges he never received written notice. Instead, JGR halted payments that he was subject to under law.

• Gabehart’s team also accused JGR of violating laws relating to attorney-client communications about Gabehart’s negotiation with JGR over the separation agreement.

• After a forensic exam was conducted of Gabehart’s JGR laptop, personal devices and personal accounts, Gabehart stated he has “received numerous alerts of suspicious and unauthorized login attempts across his personal accounts, reflecting login attempts that Mr. Gabehart was not responsible for and from locations where he was not present.”

• Gabehart’s team maintained that the forensic examination of his devices showed no evidence he distributed, used, or shared any of JGR’s confidential information.

• JGR’s decision to halt payments, meanwhile, was labeled to be in “bad business interest,” and Gabehart’s team upheld that despite Gabehart complying with the terms of the separation agreement, JGR terminated him without just cause.

• Gabehart’s team also questioned the true secrecy of JGR’s confidential information, noting that it attached Gabehart’s employee agreement to its original complaint, which has since since been published across multiple media outlets.

• “JGR acknowledged that Mr. Gabehart properly exercised his termination right under the second paragraph of Section 6 of the Agreement. JGR’s Chief Financial Officer, Tim Carmichael, conceded in a text message to Mr. Gabehart on November 8, 2025 that ‘I don’t believe your actual role was what Coach said it would be” or “what you were told you would have,’” the filing stated.

• As a result of the allegations, Gabehart is requesting relief for damages that include unpaid wages, bonuses, and other amounts stemming from the agreement. Gabehart is also seeking compensatory awards for computer fraud and trespass, legal fees, and violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

• Additionally, Gabehart requested that the court not find him subject to an 18-month noncompete.

• In addition to the counterclaims, both Spire and Gabehart responded to the JGR’s second amended complaint that was filed last week. Some of the key responses can be found below.

• In paragraph 18 of its second amended complaint, JGR stated it relies on employees “strict adherence” to its covenants and terms found in its employee agreements, policies, and procedures in an effort to protect its confidential information.

• Spire denied this claim, claiming that JGR “was prepared to permit Defendant Gabehart to begin working immediately for a competitor pursuant to certain terms in Gabehart’s employment agreement.“

• In paragraph 20 of its amended complaint, which references competition acquisition of JGR’s trade secrets, JGR stated, “Possession of this information would enable competitors to improve their race teams and equipment in ways they could not achieve through independent development, thereby allowing them to unfairly compete with JGR by bypassing or accelerating the research and development process and negating the expertise JGR has built over decades of success.“

• Spire denied that such information would allow a team to unfairly compete with JGR, and that holding that information would prevent teams from improving as a result of independent development.

• Paragraphs 55-60 of JGR’s amended complaint detail Gabehart’s dissatisfaction with his role at JGR, which eventually led to a meeting with Gibbs on Nov. 6, 2025. The events also confirm that the two agreed a separation was necessary, and the two sides entered into an amicable separation, which led to JGR presenting a separation agreement. Both Spire and Gabehart affirmed these events.

• In paragraph 63, JGR claimed Gabehart made several edits to the drafted separation agreement, a move it alleges was strategic to allow Gabehart to solicit JGR employees to leave with him.

• While Spire said it lacked sufficient knowledge or information to respond, Gabehart denied the allegation.

• JGR maintained that it consistently warned Gabehart of breaching his noncompete clause. Both Spire and Gabehart denied this claim.

• On Feb. 9, JGR terminated Gabehart’s contract due to his misappropriation of JGR’s confidential information and trade secrets.

• Both Spire and Gabehart acknowledged that JGR sent a letter to terminate Gabehart’s contract, though they opposed that it was for cause because JGR had stopped paying Gabehart.

• JGR stated that it first learned Spire hired Gabehart as its Chief Motorsports Officer in February. Spire denied JGR’s characterization of the role, and it denied that JGR first learned of the hiring in February.

• In the next paragraph (84), JGR alleged that Gabehart’s new role was similar to his former job as Competition Director. Both Spire and Gabehart denied this claim.

• Paragraph 105 of JGR’s complaint alleged that Spire extended an offer to Gabehart on Nov. 13, 2025. Spire said it “engaged in preliminary discussions” with him, but did not offer a written employment agreement proposal until January 27, 2026.

• A repeated claim by JGR has been that another employee left the team for Spire after Gabehart received a job offer. Spire admitted that the employee, Charles Donaldson, did come in January, but that the hiring has no connection with Gabehart or JGR.

• In paragraph 125, JGR echoed that its Executive Vice President Eric Schaffer called Spire’s President Bill Anthony to inform him Gabehart was under the restrictions of a noncompete clause. It also alleged that Spire was aware of Gabehart’s employee agreement no later than Dec. 3, 2025.

• Spire admitted it was aware of the agreement, but it denied that Schaffer informed them of specific provisions.

• Spire also denied that it created a bespoke role for Gabehart to cover up similar duties that he performed at JGR and induced him to violate his noncompete.

• JGR alleged in paragraph 129 that a Spire employee informed JGR that Gabehart is participating in competition and strategy decisions at Spire, and that Spire is aware of Gabehart leading competition strategies week-to-week.

• JGR accused Spire of hiring Gabehart to short cut its way to better results while knowing Gabehart was under a restrictive covenant in paragraph 132.

• Both Spire and Gabehart, while admitting his hiring as Chief Motorsports Officer, denied he was hired to perform similar duties. Spire contested it has not acquired any of JGR’s confidential information, or that such information would give it a competitive advantage.

• Spire denied paragraph 142’s claim that JGR gains a valuable and competitive advantage from the economic value of its information.