Originally Posted by
dera
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.
Flexjet lost their case in Texas due to fraud:
Miller was hired with the promise that he would receive a type rating right away and regular six-month recurrent training. Miller believed what Flexjet told him, he said, because marketing material at the time assured shareowners that they would always fly with two type-rated pilots who received recurrent training every six months.
When he went to FlightSafety International in Tucson, Ariz., for the two-week initial training course in the Learjet 60, however, “the final step of the type-rating ride never happened. That was standard practice in the industry for them.”
After Miller left Flexjet, the company asked him to pay $4,750 toward his training costs. He refused, and in October 2005 Flexjet sued him. Miller countersued, according to Flexjet, “claiming common law fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraud by nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, consumer fraud and declaratory judgment.”
On February 8 the jury issued its verdict, and neither Miller nor Flexjet received any damages. Miller claims that he “won,” mainly because Flexjet representatives admitted that they lied about the type-rating promises. During one of the pre-trial depositions of Flexjet chief pilot Rick Handschuch, Miller said, “he admitted that what was promised to owners was not delivered.”
The jury didn’t find that there was a contract, Wiley said. “It denied Bombardier’s contract claim.” While it didn’t award any damages to either party, the jury also found that Bombardier Flexjet engaged in deceptive trade practices against Miller, according to Wiley.
They promised the man a type rating and didn’t give him one. THAT voided the contract. And I’m not saying that some or all of these contracts are conscionable, I’m saying that many of them ARE legal and even signing and reneging on contracts that courts later void can hurt your career.