Originally Posted by
Joepilot84
"Wiley believes that this case sets a precedent for disputes between pilots and employers who insist that employees repay training costs if they leave before an agreed-on period of time has passed. “Now there is an actual case that got fought through to the bitter end,” he said. “This contract’s not worth the paper it’s written on.”"
That is a direct quote from the article.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This is true, but it is still technically not a precedent setting case. IF, Flexjet had appealed, and an appellate or higher court had issued a "binding" opinion on the specific issue of whether these type of contracts where enforceable, then maybe we could talk. However, the only question answered in this case was whether Miller and Flexjet had "a meeting of the minds" (to use legalese) concerning the terms of the contract. You see, if the contract was found to be void on its face we would have seen a flurry of class action lawsuits on this very issue. The lawyer here was just throwing out talking points to make the case sound more important than it really was -- a simple, run of the mill contract dispute; not a precedent setting legal behemoth.