What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Jimmy John's Non-Compete Agreements...wtf? (1 Viewer)

mquinnjr

Footballguy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/jimmy-johns-non-compete_n_5978180.html?1413230622

Jimmy John's Makes Low-Wage Workers Sign 'Oppressive' Noncompete Agreements Posted: 10/13/2014 4:03 pm EDT Updated: 1 hour ago
n-JIMMY-JOHNS-large570.jpg




If you're considering working at a Jimmy John's sandwich shop, you may want to read the fine print on your job application.

A Jimmy John's employment agreement provided to The Huffington Post includes a "non-competition" clause that's surprising in its breadth. Noncompete agreements are typically reserved for managers or employees who could clearly exploit a business's inside information by jumping to a competitor. But at Jimmy John's, the agreement apparently applies to low-wage sandwich makers and delivery drivers, too.

By signing the covenant, the worker agrees not to work at one of the sandwich chain's competitors for a period of two years following employment at Jimmy John's. But the company's definition of a "competitor" goes far beyond the Subways and Potbellys of the world. It encompasses any business that's near a Jimmy John's location and that derives a mere 10 percent of its revenue from sandwiches.

From the agreement:

Employee covenants and agrees that, during his or her employment with the Employer and for a period of two (2) years after … he or she will not have any direct or indirect interest in or perform services for … any business which derives more than ten percent (10%) of its revenue from selling submarine, hero-type, deli-style, pita and/or wrapped or rolled sandwiches and which is located with three (3) miles of either [the Jimmy John's location in question] or any such other Jimmy John's Sandwich Shop.



It isn't clear what sort of trade secrets a low-wage sandwich artist might be privy to that would warrant such a contract. A Jimmy John's spokeswoman said the company wouldn't comment.

The noncompete agreement is now part of a proposed class-action lawsuit filed this summer against Jimmy John's and one of its franchisees. As HuffPost reported in August, Jimmy John's workers recently brought two lawsuits accusing the company ofengaging in wage theft by forcing employees to work off the clock.

Last month, the workers filing one of those suits amended their initial federal complaint to argue that the noncompete agreement is overly broad and "oppressive" to employees. (Another Jimmy John's franchisee included the same noncompete language in a hiring packet posted online, but that packet was apparently pulled from the web after this story was published.)

Kathleen Chavez, the lawyer handling the case, told HuffPost in an email that her two clients named in the complaint were required to sign the agreement as a condition of employment; one is an assistant store manager, the other a former delivery driver and assistant store manager. Chavez argued that, if enforced, the clause would dramatically limit the places a worker could earn a paycheck following a stint at Jimmy John's.

Chavez said the effective blackout area for a former Jimmy John's worker would cover 6,000 square miles in 44 states and the District of Columbia. Founded in 1983, the college-town staple now has more than 2,000 locations.

"It is disturbing this document is being used and it is our position that it has broad impact on thousands of employees," said Chavez, who is a lawyer with the Chicago firm Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O’Neil.

Chavez used the example of a student who works at a Jimmy John's in Illinois during high school. Once he leaves for college at the University of Alabama, he has been foreclosed from working just about anywhere in Tuscaloosa that serves a decent share of sandwiches -- including, in theory, the school cafeteria -- because most of those places fall within three miles of a Jimmy John's.

HuffPost knows of no instances in which Jimmy John's has actually enforced this covenant upon a worker, and the company wouldn't necessarily be successful if it tried.

But it's not unheard of for a sandwich chain to enforce a noncompete clause. Last year, a former Subway manager accused her old employer of trying to block her from starting a new job at another sandwich shop, citing a clause the manager signed in 2009.

The effectiveness of noncompetition agreements varies from state to state. If the worker fights the clause in court, the company generally needs to demonstrate that it's legitimately trying to protecting itself, and that the clause is reasonable and wouldn't put an undue burden on a worker.

"A guy who's putting a piece of roast beef between two pieces of rye bread -- the challenge for the employer is to show what the hell this person knows that will hurt you," said one expert on noncompete agreements, who asked not to be named since he isn't involved in the case.

"Without making a judgment about Jimmy John's, I would say the lower you go down the food chain of employees, the question becomes a little more pressing: What is your legitimate business reason here?"

A company in this position may feel there's little to lose by inserting such language into an agreement. Even if the clause failed to hold up in court, the very possibility of limited employment opportunities could dissuade certain workers from rocking the boat -- like, say, those who are trying to unionize their Jimmy John's sandwich shop.
Is this for real? Lawyerguys, please chime in.

I feel like every sandwich shop out there would do this if JJ's is in the right here. So, they get lower level workers to sign the agreement, and basically own them until the non-compete expires, which is two full years...to deliver sandwiches, take orders over the phone, and make sandwiches? Something seems very off here.

Does the prospective employee signing the NCA (presumably without reading and mentally processing all fine print) completely shield JJ's from any sort of legal backlash here?

 
These are totally unenforceable, but I imagine some (most) low level Jimmy John sandwich makers don't know that.

 
Seems like some over-zealous lawyers trying to cya. I doubt if such a clause would ever be enforced. It is silly clause, but the article seems overly dramatic.

 
The employees are a huge part of their core competency - freaky fast delivery - so it makes sense that they would try to protect themselves strategy-wise. It sounds simple but sandwich/bread recipes may be a big part of the deal as well. In that industry, whatever competitive advantage you have is fleeting, and apparently they've got a good thing going right now (at least there is a lot of buzz going for them at the moment), so they're playing a little defense. Good for them. It makes sense to me. Serious question (just to talk about business and SWOT): What other threats do you think they might need to put additional effort into?

 
Unenforceable. Also, i would be shocked if Jimmy John's went to the expense to sue someone over it. That is a waste of money and resources to try and go after the delivery guy so it was stupid to include it. As it only hurts them given the expense of this class action mentioned in the article and bad PR. If I ran the business I would be pissed at whoever add this to my form employment app.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not really the thread for this, but:

Drew Brees owns at least two Jimmy John's franchises in the New Orleans area. Being a Saints fan, I thought it would be a kick to take the family there and order sandwiches.

Guess I'm too used to the ordering models at local po-boy places, at Subway, and at Quizno's ... but I simply could not make heads or tails about how to order at JJ's. It's been a few years, and I forget the details. IIRC, you can't just walk up and order a "12-inch ham & cheese on wheat" -- seemed like the basic sandwiches all had special names, so you had to order, I don't know, " 'The Hammer**', hold roast beef, add ham, hold cheddar, add swiss, hold iceberg and onions, add romain/tomato/pickles, etc".

Maybe it was my problem ... but I haven't been back since :shrug:

** made-up name

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like some over-zealous lawyers trying to cya. I doubt if such a clause would ever be enforced. It is silly clause, but the article seems overly dramatic.
Seems to me like someone who was impersonating a lawyer drafted this. totally unenforceable.

 
I recently ordered JJ's for my employees, as recognition for hitting a certain safety milestone. In total, I ordered four 30-piece platters (10 sandwiches per platter), and four buckets of pickles. I got chips, cookies, and drinks from the local grocery store.

When I went and picked up the platters, I asked if they could give me some hot peppers on the side (since the peppers are an optional ingredient on some of their sandwiches). The girl told me that they could not. I asked again, and suggested that they just throw some peppers in one (or two) of their beverage cups. After all, considering I was spending $250+ on sandwiches and pickles, they could at least hook me up with $1-2 worth of peppers, right? She again said no, and mentioned that it was against company policy to give out any side items. I pointed out that I had ordered all of the sandwiches with mustard/mayo on the side, to which she replied that packets were OK (as side items), but nothing else can be given out "on the side."

For a split second, I thought about just leaving (and telling them that I would go to Subway), since I had not yet paid for the platters, but there is no way I would ever do something like that. I mean, they would have to REALLY piss me off. This I just found to be more odd than anything else. And, honestly, it makes me think twice about ordering through their "catering" service again. Talk about being as unaccomodating as possible. Weird.

 
I recently ordered JJ's for my employees, as recognition for hitting a certain safety milestone. In total, I ordered four 30-piece platters (10 sandwiches per platter), and four buckets of pickles. I got chips, cookies, and drinks from the local grocery store.

When I went and picked up the platters, I asked if they could give me some hot peppers on the side (since the peppers are an optional ingredient on some of their sandwiches). The girl told me that they could not. I asked again, and suggested that they just throw some peppers in one (or two) of their beverage cups. After all, considering I was spending $250+ on sandwiches and pickles, they could at least hook me up with $1-2 worth of peppers, right? She again said no, and mentioned that it was against company policy to give out any side items. I pointed out that I had ordered all of the sandwiches with mustard/mayo on the side, to which she replied that packets were OK (as side items), but nothing else can be given out "on the side."

For a split second, I thought about just leaving (and telling them that I would go to Subway), since I had not yet paid for the platters, but there is no way I would ever do something like that. I mean, they would have to REALLY piss me off. This I just found to be more odd than anything else. And, honestly, it makes me think twice about ordering through their "catering" service again. Talk about being as unaccomodating as possible. Weird.
Should have left.

 
This is probably required at the franchise level. I work for a franchise company and we require employees to sign noncompetes as well. Although in our industry, we have some very proprietary methods in technology that go far beyond a sandwich recipe.

 
I recently ordered JJ's for my employees, as recognition for hitting a certain safety milestone. In total, I ordered four 30-piece platters (10 sandwiches per platter), and four buckets of pickles. I got chips, cookies, and drinks from the local grocery store.

When I went and picked up the platters, I asked if they could give me some hot peppers on the side (since the peppers are an optional ingredient on some of their sandwiches). The girl told me that they could not. I asked again, and suggested that they just throw some peppers in one (or two) of their beverage cups. After all, considering I was spending $250+ on sandwiches and pickles, they could at least hook me up with $1-2 worth of peppers, right? She again said no, and mentioned that it was against company policy to give out any side items. I pointed out that I had ordered all of the sandwiches with mustard/mayo on the side, to which she replied that packets were OK (as side items), but nothing else can be given out "on the side."

For a split second, I thought about just leaving (and telling them that I would go to Subway), since I had not yet paid for the platters, but there is no way I would ever do something like that. I mean, they would have to REALLY piss me off. This I just found to be more odd than anything else. And, honestly, it makes me think twice about ordering through their "catering" service again. Talk about being as unaccomodating as possible. Weird.
Should have left.
I couldn't have left after having them put together $250 worth of sammiches. But i certainly could write the franchisee a friendly note telling them about the experience and concluding that next time I would go to Subway or somewhere else.

 
I recently ordered JJ's for my employees, as recognition for hitting a certain safety milestone. In total, I ordered four 30-piece platters (10 sandwiches per platter), and four buckets of pickles. I got chips, cookies, and drinks from the local grocery store.

When I went and picked up the platters, I asked if they could give me some hot peppers on the side (since the peppers are an optional ingredient on some of their sandwiches). The girl told me that they could not. I asked again, and suggested that they just throw some peppers in one (or two) of their beverage cups. After all, considering I was spending $250+ on sandwiches and pickles, they could at least hook me up with $1-2 worth of peppers, right? She again said no, and mentioned that it was against company policy to give out any side items. I pointed out that I had ordered all of the sandwiches with mustard/mayo on the side, to which she replied that packets were OK (as side items), but nothing else can be given out "on the side."

For a split second, I thought about just leaving (and telling them that I would go to Subway), since I had not yet paid for the platters, but there is no way I would ever do something like that. I mean, they would have to REALLY piss me off. This I just found to be more odd than anything else. And, honestly, it makes me think twice about ordering through their "catering" service again. Talk about being as unaccomodating as possible. Weird.
Should have left.
I couldn't have left after having them put together $250 worth of sammiches. But i certainly could write the franchisee a friendly note telling them about the experience and concluding that next time I would go to Subway or somewhere else.
Actually, there's more to the story. I've ordered the platters twice. The first time, they said that they couldn't give me peppers on the side. I didn't push the issue, but assumed it was either because they didn't carry "side" containers (didn't think about the drink cups at the time), or because there was some sort of liability issue (with the peppers being hot). Didn't get into the reasoning... Just left it alone, and paid for the sandwiches. Afterwards, the more I thought about it, the more I thought it was strange. So, I did leave a comment on their website, explaining that I had purchased a large amount of food, and that it was strange that they were so adverse to accommodating my request. No response.

This time (a couple of weeks ago), I decided to give them another chance. It had been about 9 months since the previous order. Ordered the platters (asked for mayo/mustard on the side), but didn't mention the peppers until I went to pick up the order. That's when I was told it was against company policy. So, I should have known better. At the same time, I didn't really push the issue the first time, and just chalked it up to either a weird rule that they have, or maybe just a single employee being difficult/lazy.

I have noticed that JJ's is very much into sustainability. In other words, it's mentioned on their website, and it's also fairly noticeable when I eat there. They don't waste anything, to the point of being borderline annoying. In other words, no bag for to go orders, unless you ask for one. Same with napkins... They have them at the front counter, but don't give you any (you can get them yourself). I appreciate the sustainability thing, but at the same time, if someone is buying close to $300 worth of sandwiches from you, one would think they would be able to throw in a few peppers (THAT COME WITH THE SANDWICHES, IF YOU WANT THEM) on the side.

It's unfortunate, though, because I do like their sandwiches. I'll probably explore other options in the future.

 
I recently ordered JJ's for my employees, as recognition for hitting a certain safety milestone. In total, I ordered four 30-piece platters (10 sandwiches per platter), and four buckets of pickles. I got chips, cookies, and drinks from the local grocery store.

When I went and picked up the platters, I asked if they could give me some hot peppers on the side (since the peppers are an optional ingredient on some of their sandwiches). The girl told me that they could not. I asked again, and suggested that they just throw some peppers in one (or two) of their beverage cups. After all, considering I was spending $250+ on sandwiches and pickles, they could at least hook me up with $1-2 worth of peppers, right? She again said no, and mentioned that it was against company policy to give out any side items. I pointed out that I had ordered all of the sandwiches with mustard/mayo on the side, to which she replied that packets were OK (as side items), but nothing else can be given out "on the side."

For a split second, I thought about just leaving (and telling them that I would go to Subway), since I had not yet paid for the platters, but there is no way I would ever do something like that. I mean, they would have to REALLY piss me off. This I just found to be more odd than anything else. And, honestly, it makes me think twice about ordering through their "catering" service again. Talk about being as unaccomodating as possible. Weird.
Should have left.
I couldn't have left after having them put together $250 worth of sammiches. But i certainly could write the franchisee a friendly note telling them about the experience and concluding that next time I would go to Subway or somewhere else.
Pretty much how I felt. The kids are just following orders (or company policy), and making the sandwiches. It would be a real dlck move to leave them high and dry. It would be sort of funny, though (but there's no way that I would do that, given the circumstances).

 
On the flip-side, I received an email from Qdoba today, notifying me that they no longer charge extra for guacamole. Funny timing. Maybe I'll try their catering the next time we have a company event.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are companies that require in your employment agreement that you can't sue them for unfair labor practices. Nice to see you can just opt out of federal law.

 
Yeah, non-competes are almost worthless.

Unless a former employee goes and starts a restaurant next door named JohnnyJim's that boasts similar food and rabidly rapid service, I doubt there is much JJ can or will do with a non-compete agreement with its employees.

 
Yeah, non-competes are almost worthless.
Depends on the state and the facts involved in the particular case. Many times they are anything but worthless.

Unless a former employee goes and starts a restaurant next door named JohnnyJim's that boasts similar food and rabidly rapid service, I doubt there is much JJ can or will do with a non-compete agreement with its employees.
This particular non-compete is pretty worthless, however.

 
These are totally unenforceable, but I imagine some (most) low level Jimmy John sandwich makers don't know that.
Yep.
But I would also guess that most low-level JJ workers don't understand what they signed so it probably doesn't matter anyway.
I bet they make it real clear what you are signing or else the implied threat is useless.
:lmao: probably not. Probably just 'Hey sign this and we'll get you a schedule.' No owner is getting off on threatening an employee before they are hired.
 
Dumb. I'm sure someone thought it would be a good way to help cut down on employee churn, which is obviously insanely high in that industry.

 
Dumb. I'm sure someone thought it would be a good way to help cut down on employee churn, which is obviously insanely high in that industry.
Frankly, I think it's just as simple as having some lawyer draw up the most favorable contract possible to JJ's - which happens to include a non-compete.

 
I've purposely included unenforceable terms in contracts before, but not ones that are this funny. It'd be even better if it were accompanied by a stipulated punitive damages clause. And a stipulated judgment.

 
I don't think Jimmy Johns is as fast as the commercials would have you believe.
I have ordered JJ online before leaving a meeting on a different floor and had them calling me from the lobby before I got to my desk. Truth.

 
Dumb. I'm sure someone thought it would be a good way to help cut down on employee churn, which is obviously insanely high in that industry.
Frankly, I think it's just as simple as having some lawyer draw up the most favorable contract possible to JJ's - which happens to include a non-compete.
There can be negative consequences for including an obviously unenforceable noncompete in an employment contract.

 
I used to order JJs at my old office. Last year I built a new building 2 blocks west on the same Main St. I called to order delivery a short while later and was told I was now less than a block out of their delivery radius. No compromise at all. I said that's fine, just deliver it to a building at the corner and I'll walk down and meet you. They said no, sorry, we can't do that. I felt like I was on the Seinfeld episode where he returned the jacket out of spite then wanted to change his answer.

 
These are totally unenforceable, but I imagine some (most) low level Jimmy John sandwich makers don't know that.
Yep.
But I would also guess that most low-level JJ workers don't understand what they signed so it probably doesn't matter anyway.
I bet they make it real clear what you are signing or else the implied threat is useless.
:lmao: probably not. Probably just 'Hey sign this and we'll get you a schedule.' No owner is getting off on threatening an employee before they are hired.
If you don't explain it why bother? If no one knows what they sign why bother? Why even have it? It makes even less sense than it does now to include it and not explain it. And I guess someone knew what they were signing or had it explained because I doubt the lawyer handling the case went in to apply and found out that way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
These are totally unenforceable, but I imagine some (most) low level Jimmy John sandwich makers don't know that.
Yep.
But I would also guess that most low-level JJ workers don't understand what they signed so it probably doesn't matter anyway.
I bet they make it real clear what you are signing or else the implied threat is useless.
:lmao: probably not. Probably just 'Hey sign this and we'll get you a schedule.' No owner is getting off on threatening an employee before they are hired.
If you don't explain it why bother? If no one knows what they sign why bother? Why even have it? It makes even less sense than it does now to include it and not explain it. And I guess someone knew what they were signing or had it explained because I doubt the lawyer handling the case went in to apply and found out that way.
I'm just saying that at the store level of the franchisee or manager or whoever doesn't really care about this. This is part of the required documentation from the franchise company. All I am saying is that there is no sinister plot to scare eight dollar an hour delivery guys into not working for Subway at the store level. Those people just want to run a business and hire somebody to deliver sandwiches.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top