Jimmy John’s Non-Poaching Clause May Have Harmed Employees

Many Americans who work for fast food restaurants do not make a living wage. They find it hard to make ends meet with low paying jobs like those found at fast food chains. No-poaching agreements between restaurant franchises make it even harder to earn a solid living.

Many fast food restaurants, including the popular Jimmy John’s, have been accused of entering into no-poach agreements that keep workers from finding better-paying jobs. These agreements may violate federal and state antitrust and employment laws.

Jimmy John’s is one of several restaurant chains that recently agreed to remove anti-poaching clauses from their franchise agreements. Advocates argue the alleged  Jimmy John’s non poaching clause kept workers, who might be able to compete for higher paying wages, at a lower paying position at their original place of employment.

How does a Jimmy John’s No-Poaching Clause Work?

It has been alleged that certain fast food franchises have signed agreements with each other that would limit who they can hire. Allegedly, agreements known as no-poaching clauses have been signed between franchisees of restaurants like Jimmy John’s, Burger King, Domino’s, Arby’s, Papa John’s and Pizza Hut.

What these no-poaching agreements like the alleged Jimmy John’s non poaching clause say is that a franchise may not hire or rehire a worker from another franchise within a certain amount of time. These types of agreements keep wages low and non-competitive, and they keep workers from experiencing new opportunities to grow in their jobs.

Also called no-hire agreements, these no-poaching clauses would prevent one restaurant from hiring a potential managerial candidate or another up and coming worker from another restaurant in the same chain.

What makes this difficult is that workers with skills that fit the job of a Jimmy John’s employee, may be prevented from working for a different Jimmy John’s because of a possible Jimmy John’s non poaching clause.

Is a Jimmy John’s Non Poaching Clause Illegal?

Businesses that enter into these anti-poaching agreements run the risk of violating federal and state laws.

The New York Times reported that “two lawsuits, filed this year against McDonald’s and Carl’s Jr.’s parent company, CKE Restaurants Holdings, contend that such no-hire rules violate antitrust and labor laws.”

Interestingly, the Department of Justice has announced that their Antitrust Division is investigating the legality of no-hire clauses like the Jimmy John’s non poaching clause.

The DOJ delineates the difference between a no-poach agreement and what they call a “naked” no-poach agreement.

“No-poach agreements are naked if they are not reasonably necessary to any separate, legitimate business collaboration between the employers. Naked no-poach and wage-fixing agreements are per se unlawful because they eliminate competition in the same irredeemable way as agreements to fix product prices or allocate customers,” the DOJ says.

They have announced that they are investigating the legality of naked no-poach agreements like the ones that many workers say have kept them from getting hired at restaurants where they should be hired.

If you believe you have been harmed by a no-poach agreement like the Jimmy John’s non poaching clause, you may be entitled to legal compensation. Speaking with an attorney can help you determine the right legal path for you.

Join a Free Fast Food Employee Poaching Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you work for Arby’s, Burger King, Jimmy John’s, Papa John’s, Pizza Hut or Domino’s and were prevented from moving to a different franchise that is part of the same company, you may have been the victim of a no-poach agreement. If so, you may qualify to participate in this employee poaching class action lawsuit investigation.

Learn More