KANSAS CITY — A federal judge in Missouri has denied a former SupplyLogic salesperson’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the company from enforcing noncompetition and nonsolicitation provisions in his employment agreement while his lawsuit proceeds.
U.S. District Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark ruled Aug. 21 that Frank Poeschel did not show he faces irreparable harm without an injunction, a finding the court said independently required denial of the request.
The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
Poeschel, who had worked in promotional-products sales for 39 years, sought to prevent SLWM, LLC, doing business as SupplyLogic, from enforcing provisions in a 2025 employment agreement.
He also asked the court to bar SupplyLogic from initiating legal action against him or third parties based on those provisions and to require the company to notify third parties that enforcement had been enjoined.
The agreement restricts Poeschel, during his employment and for 24 months after it ends, from conducting business with SupplyLogic’s current customers or customers that had done business with the company in the preceding 12 months.
It also bars him from soliciting present or prospective customers, suppliers or other business relations to terminate, reduce or adversely modify their relationships with SupplyLogic.
The agreement defines the restricted territory as the United States.
Poeschel argued that the restrictions would effectively prevent him from working in the promotional-products sales industry, the only field in which he has expertise, as he approaches retirement.
He also cited potential bankruptcy, damage to his credit score, difficulty paying for health insurance and medical care, an inability to care for his ailing father, lost business opportunities and harm to his business relationships and professional reputation.
The court found that the agreement did not facially bar Poeschel from working for a SupplyLogic competitor.
Instead, Ketchmark wrote, it prevents him from providing services to current or recent SupplyLogic clients and from soliciting parties to harm their relationships with the company.
The court said Poeschel presented no evidence that the company’s client base was so large that the restrictions would prevent him from working in the industry, nor evidence that he had applied to competitors or determined whether competitors could employ him without implicating the agreement.
The court also concluded that Poeschel had not shown why his sales skills could not transfer to another industry.
It found that his alleged economic injuries, including potential financial hardship and costs related to health insurance, could be addressed through money damages.
Poeschel resigned from SupplyLogic on April 28, 2026, the same day he filed the lawsuit. The complaint asserts nine claims, including fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and claims seeking declarations that the restrictive covenants are unenforceable.
The dispute stems in part from a commission-plan change announced by SupplyLogic in April 2025.
Poeschel contends that company officials assured him that his pay and commissions would remain unchanged when they urged him to sign the 2025 employment agreement. He signed the agreement in April 2025 after receiving confirmation in an email that a separate commission agreement was coming and that all accounts would pay under the existing A Plan.
Less than two weeks later, SupplyLogic announced a new commission plan with a backdated effective date of March 1, 2025.
Poeschel contends the new plan reduced his earned commissions by about 40% compared with the earlier A Plan. The court did not resolve the merits of Poeschel’s claims concerning the agreement or the commission change in ruling on the injunction request.
Poeschel identified three SupplyLogic customers, Heart to Heart, Populus and Wyndham, that contacted him after his resignation.
He said he did not pursue business with them because of the threat that SupplyLogic would enforce the restrictive covenants.
The court found that the resulting lost-sales claims could be quantified through money damages because the customers are identifiable, historical sales records exist and future business with other sales providers could be discovered during litigation.
The court also found Poeschel’s claims of reputational and goodwill harm too speculative. It said that, on the record before it, Poeschel had not established a sufficient threat of irreparable injury in any of the categories he raised.
Because the absence of irreparable harm was enough to deny the motion, the court did not consider the remaining factors for a preliminary injunction, including Poeschel’s likelihood of success on the merits, the balance of harms and the public interest.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division case number: 4:26-cv-00359
