And most if not all courts will throw it out. Generally people don't realize this and will try to abide by it.

Michigan's laws, which are actually fairly pro-employer, say:

if the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, and the type of employment or line of business.

While IANAL, the Jimmy John's clause would seem to fail on the geographical area and type of employment. Michigan courts have regularly thrown out national restrictions (*any* Jimmy John's location) and broad definitions of competition (only 10% of revenue from sandwiches). Given that restaurants tend to cluster, such an agreement would prevent someone from working at pretty much any restaurant in a marginally developed area, which is clearly an unreasonable prohibition. The two years is at the high end of what has been accepted in Michigan courts as well, but still barely within the bounds of acceptance.

Not to mention that noncompetes of this nature are almost never applied to unskilled workers. I would expect to sign something like this as a CTO with ownership and deep knowledge of my employer's strategy, technology, and processes, but certainly not as a minimum wage sandwich maker.

And yes, it's a travesty. I can afford legal counsel, and I'm schooled well enough already that I can argue my own case most times without counsel. Some 18yo at a Jimmy John's isn't going to know better.

Unrelated but similar case in point: my son had his license taken away at a convenience store yesterday by a manager who couldn't be bothered to see that my son had just let his hair grow out. My son didn't think to show him his student ID or other proof that it was actually his license, and left because the asshole was being belligerent. Young people just don't have the experience to understand when they're being taken advantage of.