Originally Posted by VOLLU

Boutique Air is a California based commuter air carrier which operates flights to and from small communities without commercial passenger service. When a new pilot joins Boutique, they are required to complete a company specific training program. The resulting “Part 135” certification only qualifies the pilot to fly for Boutique. If a pilot leaves Boutique to fly for another airline, they must complete another certification program for the subsequent carrier.

Boutique tries to stem the tide of its high pilot turnover rate by requiring its new hires to sign a Boutique Air PC-12 FIRST OFFICER NEW HIRE AGREEMENT and TRAINING CONTRACT.” Under that contract, the new pilot is obligated to reimburse Boutique for a pro rated portion of the $14,000 training program if the pilot resigns from Boutique less than 24 months after certification.

About six months after completing the training program, the pilot resigned from Boutique due to what he described as a “toxic and unsafe” work environment. Boutique filed a lawsuit against the pilot for reimbursement.

Under California Labor Code § 2802(a) “an employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.” In other words, Boutique cannot require the employee to bear the cost of training that qualifies them only to fly for Boutique. Under California Labor Code § 2804, any contract which obligates the employee to reimburse the employer is “null and void.”

In the California case “In Re Acknowledgement Cases,” the appellate court, interpreting Labor Code sections 2802 and 2804, ruled that the Los Angeles Police Department may not recover the cost of LAPD mandated training which qualifies the employee for no employment outside of the LAPD.

The case is pending in the Superior Court of Fulton County, GA. The pilot is represented by attorney Lawrence Silverman of the Southeast Consumer Law firm in Marietta, GA.