View Single Post
Old 08-29-2019, 09:39 AM   #11  
In a land of unicorns
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: 175 FO
Posts: 2,870

Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
Excuse me, but did you even READ the Mesa case? It absolutely WAS NOT a totally different scenario.

A few excerpts:

So, at least in the state of Arizona, you are absolutely WRONG. This was a training contract for INITIAL FAA REQUIRED TRAINING. Specifically, it was for a type rating and Indoc training that the defendant DID NOT HAVE. It was specifically for training costs, not for a bonus, RTP training, or flying hours necessary to qualify for the ATP. It was for his indoc and type rating.

The pilot lost initially and he lost on appeal. And THAT has been the history in all of these cases. Granted, oftentimes the employer just lets it go because the sums involved donít warrant the effort, but any one of these cases can go to trial, and then what happens?

Easy. Every single background check that is ever done on these individuals is going to show that they reneged on a contract with their employer.

If you donít think that is going to adversely affect their employability, then more fool you.

Moreover, if you actually READ the other articles, it shows training contracts to be enforceable in California as well. As for libel or slander, truth is an absolute bar to winning cases for either of those. Saying someone reneged on a contract when they actually DID renege on a contract is legal in all jurisdictions of the US.
You don't understand the difference here.

You can have a binding training contract, assuming there is consideration. Consideration in the Mesa case was the training(type rating) he received, which can be transferred to any other employer.

What BF is referring to are contracts with NO consideration. eg. You promise to work for A for X amount of time, and A only provides their company specific training, but nothing that is of value outside A. Most 135 training contracts are like that, especially the ones for non-type rated equipment, and they are not enforceable because they lack consideration (and often would be unconscionable due to the excessive value and/or one-sideness of the contract).

You might want to read the Acknowledgement case and especially how the court interpreted the statute they used (2802 or something like that IIRC), and understand the difference between a training contract providing you a type rating, or training contract just for company specific training.

One of the requirements for a contract to be legal and binding is that it needs to have consideration. Something of value for both parties. An arbitrary training contract often does not have that. In the case of Mesa, they provided a type rating, something that has value. That makes the contract legal.

CA is actually one of the better states, because in CA employer can not go after the employee for legal costs in employment litigation.
dera is offline