Originally Posted by
tomgoodman
Well, it might. At common law, consideration can be something of value given up by the promissee, whether or not the promisor later retains any benefit from it. The company-specific training was of prospective value at the time of signing, and it did cost the airline time and effort to deliver.
But that goes against the premise of employer having to bear costs of doing business, and transferring that cost to the employee is not allowed.
That is how FlexJet lost their case in TX. And that was one of the main points in the Acknowledgement cases. It's not case law, but it gives a good insight on the subtle difference between generic- and company specific training.
This varies state by state, but in TX and CA, if the training is company specific, and only obtainable from that company, then a contract using that as consideration is generally not enforceable.
Also, a lot of these contracts are unconscionable simply because the monetary value attached to them. You can't reasonably say your 135 SIC Caravan training was worth $25k over 2 years, non pro-rated.