View Single Post
Old 08-29-2019, 11:15 AM
  #15  
dera
In a land of unicorns
 
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: Whale FO
Posts: 6,403
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
I ABSOLUTELY understand. He stated - and I quote:



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.
I believe BF was referring to an average Part 135 training contract, where the company provides training that is required, by the FAA, for employment at that company but that cannot be transferred anywhere else (such as a company training course in equipment you have already been typed with, or equipment that does not require a type rating).
And then attaching some ridiculous dollar value to that contract.
That's not valuable consideration, that's a cost of doing business. Almost all states have statutes that require employer to bear all costs of doing business and not allowing them to be transferred to the employee.

Those are the contracts that usually are not enforceable. They lack consideration, and are often unconscionable.
If they provide you with a type rating, or any skill that can be transferred, then pay up or man up and work the deal.

That Mesa case is ridiculous. The guy had zero chance to be successful. That case had consideration (ATP and a type rating), it wasn't unconscionable (easy to show that a type rating costs tens of thousands of dollars) and he hardly worked any of the contract so he couldn't show lack of damages because he provided ample return for their investment. Stupid to take that to court. His lawyer should be ashamed.

Agree with the last paragraph, choose your battles and keep your name "google-clean".
dera is offline