On September 4, 2014, Mesa Airlines hired Condron as a
prospective EMB 175 First Officer, with the understanding that he would
be part of a crew that would fly the Embraer 175 aircraft. Mesa Airlines
requires all employees who operate an EMB 175 aircraft be trained in
accordance with its Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) approved
training program. At the time of his hire, Condron did not have the
requisite FAA rating; accordingly, Mesa Airlines offered Condron the
training necessary to comply with company policy and to qualify for the
FAA rating.

Mesa Airlines offers such pilots the required training in exchange
for execution of a promissory note to be paid: in full upon demand, by
completion of twelve months’ employment, or by a combination of the two.
Thus, the CBA expressly allows Mesa Airlines to require new and/or less
experienced pilots to reimburse Mesa Airlines for the cost of such training
by signing the Note in a set amount. The CBA also provides that the balance
owed “will be subject to straight line amortization beginning from the date
of successful completion of the check ride,” declining to zero at the end of twelve months, and reduced by half if a pilot gives forty-five days’ notice
of his resignation.

¶4 As relevant here, the CBA sets the amount owed for the
training provided to Condron at $11,470.00 and requires the amount to
increase annually with the Consumer Price Index.1 Consistent with the
amortization provision of the CBA, the Note further provides that Condron
receive “credit against the principal amount of the Note based on the length
of [his] service” with Mesa Airlines.

¶5 Condron signed the Note on September 3, 2014. After signing
the Note, Condron was officially hired, completed the training, and
eventually flew as a first officer under the supervision of a line check
airman. He resigned after flying only twelve hours for Mesa Airlines.2

Condron notified Mesa Airlines on December 5, 2014, that he had
accepted other employment and was resigning effective December 19, 2014.
Mesa Airlines deducted $764.08 from Condron’s final
paycheck, pursuant to the Note’s terms, and demanded Condron pay the
remaining balance on the Note. Condron did not comply with the demand,
and Mesa Airlines sued Condron for breach of contract. The parties filed
cross motions for summary judgment.

¶7 Following oral argument, the superior court found the Note
was a “stand-alone promissory note without any accompanying
employment agreement.” The court considered, but expressly rejected,
Condron’s argument that the Note’s principal amount was similar to a
liquidated damages provision and operated as an unenforceable penalty.
Accordingly, the court denied Condron’s motion and granted summary
judgment in favor of Mesa Airlines.



¶9 The superior court denied Condron’s motion for
reconsideration, and in doing so, noted the case was “a freedom of contract
case,” and that no statute prohibited Mesa Airlines from charging Condron
for the expense of providing the requisite training. The court further found
in the alternative that even if one erroneously assumed that “the
promissory note impaired Condron’s right to terminate an at-will
employment arrangement . . . that is a result to which he voluntarily
assented, and it is well-understood that statutory, indeed even
constitutional rights designed for an individual’s protection can be
waived.” The court awarded costs and attorneys’ fees to Mesa Airlines in
its final judgment.

CONCLUSION

¶27 The superior court’s summary judgment in favor of Mesa
Airlines is affirmed.