The Illinois Attorney General sued Jimmy John’s over the use of its noncompete restrictions on June 8, 2016. The suit alleges that Jimmy John’s is violating state law by requiring its sandwich makers and delivery drivers (i.e. low-wage workers) to sign restrictive noncompetition agreements.
A copy of the lawsuit may be found here (Illinois
The Wall Street Journal, by
I recently ran across a great article about noncompete agreements, which touch upon two important issues that threaten the success of every non-compete lawsuit: the role choice of law provisions play in noncompete litigation and damages at the preliminary injunction stage of a non-compete lawsuit.
A Court ruled that a company didn’t show a substantial likelihood that it would succeed in enforcing noncompetition restrictions against four former employees. This failure, however, is an important reminder for companies with multi-state operations or employees who may live in a state where non-compete restrictions are not favored or otherwise enforceable.
Companies commonly rely on non-compete restrictions to protect their competitive business interests. But if such post-employment restrictions are not properly drafted, those agreements may not be enforceable if challenged in court.
When it comes to post employment restrictions, non-compete agreements often get all the attention. In fact, such restrictions are a frequent subject of discussion on our law firm’s blog (
We recently wrote about the importance of having an enforceable noncompete in place in order to protect your business (