An Ohio court has dismissed an appeal from Kaleb Jomaa, who challenged a preliminary injunction from Freedom Roofing, Windows & Siding, LLC. The injunction aimed to prevent Jomaa from breaching a noncompete agreement he signed with the company. This ruling is significant as it highlights the complexities of noncompete agreements and the legal standards for appealing preliminary injunctions.
The case, Freedom Roofing, Windows & Siding, L.L.C. v. Jomaa, was filed on August 25, 2026, in the Ohio Court of Appeals, under docket number S-25-044. Jomaa's appeal was dismissed because the court found that the order granting the preliminary injunction was not a final appealable order.
Background
Freedom Roofing, Windows & Siding, LLC, is a company that provides roofing, windows, and siding services for residential and commercial properties. Jomaa was hired by Freedom in October 2023 as a project estimator and was later promoted to Director of Sales in February 2024. During his time with the company, Freedom's Expansion Committee discussed implementing a noncompete agreement, which Jomaa signed on October 21, 2024. This agreement prohibited him from competing with Freedom for nine months within a 50-mile radius of any of its locations.
In February 2025, Jomaa took unpaid leave due to anxiety and returned to a less demanding position as Branch Sales Manager. He resigned from Freedom on March 17, 2025, and shortly after, he began working for Salinas Construction and Repairs, LLC, a direct competitor of Freedom. This led Freedom to file a lawsuit against Jomaa, Salinas Construction, and its founder, Kevin Salinas, alleging that Jomaa breached the noncompete agreement and that Salinas Construction tortiously interfered with it.
The Ruling
The trial court granted Freedom's motion for a preliminary injunction on November 20, 2025, stating that “the terms of the non-compete provisions [are] reasonable in scope, duration, and geographical limitation.” The court ordered that Jomaa be enjoined from breaching the noncompete agreement, which meant he could not work for Salinas Construction during the nine-month period specified in the agreement.
However, Jomaa appealed this ruling, raising three assignments of error. He argued that the trial court made reversible errors in granting the injunction, failing to meet specificity requirements, and not requiring security in its decision. The court, led by Judge Charles Sulek, ultimately dismissed the appeal, stating that the preliminary injunction was not a final order that could be appealed.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for both Jomaa and Freedom Roofing. For Jomaa, the dismissal means he must adhere to the terms of the noncompete agreement, limiting his employment options in the roofing industry for the duration specified. For Freedom, the ruling reinforces the enforceability of noncompete agreements, particularly when they are deemed reasonable in scope and duration.
The court's decision also clarifies the legal standards surrounding preliminary injunctions in Ohio. It emphasizes that such injunctions are generally not appealable unless they meet specific criteria outlined in state law. This ruling may influence future cases involving noncompete agreements and the appealability of preliminary injunctions.
What's Next
Jomaa's options for appeal are limited due to the dismissal of his case. He may still pursue his counterclaims against Freedom, which include allegations of a hostile work environment and constructive discharge. However, the current ruling stands, and any further legal action will depend on the outcomes of those counterclaims.