Originally Posted by
dera
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.
I ABSOLUTELY understand. He stated - and I quote:
Originally Posted by
Bahamasflyer
Sorry, but those cases are apples vs oranges to what the OP is asking and the examples I'm listing.
Those cases, as well as the Mesa one you linked, are completely different because those cases involved either the employee taking bonus money (voluntary) or tuition reimbursement (also voluntary).
Before you responded I made it very clear that those situations would indeed likely cause courts to rule in favor of the employers.
Myself and the OP are talking about employers demanding reimbursement for costs that are MANDATORY for employment. Not only mandatory in terms of company policy, but also required by the FAA for training.
Two totally different scenarios.
He stated that a contract for mandatory training required by the FAA such as type-rating would not be enforceable. The case I cited demonstrates that it is. It was NOT two different scenarios. You cannot agree with me about the MESA case and disagree that Bahamasflyer was wrong about his interpretation. Well, you CAN I guess, since you have, but you would be wrong.
And while I would agree that a contract requires consideration on both sides, I would disagree as to what sort of interpretation the court’s of various states would put on what constitutes consideration. In the California case the fact that the LAPD had sent prospective employees to the state police academy was deemed adequate reason to enforce a training contract, although other required training called for by the job was not. That decision implied that some portability of the benefit to the individual was necessary, but it was the first such ruling under California law. Previous court cases held otherwise. And not all cases will be decided in California.
My point in rebutting Bahamasflyer was not to attempt to justify training contracts, merely to point out that laws vary from state to state and many employers will indeed go after you - and often successfully - if you renege on a contract, particularly renege as egregiously as the Mesa case.
And if they do choose to raise a stink about you, it can only hurt you because it doesn’t matter if ultimately you win or lose, once it becomes a court case it becomes a matter of public record and it will turn up on every background check the HR department of future potential employers do on you and you would be naive in the extreme to believe they won)t hold it against you.
https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2014/09/0...ing-contracts/