Do I have to reimburse training costs to my employer? Additional training for employees benefits everyone, right? Employees become more adept at their jobs, performing with greater skill and confidence. Employers enjoy a business that operates like a well-oiled machine, with employees’ performance at the highest levels possible. But what if, after engaging in a costly training program, an employee jumps ship? Particularly when that employee decides to work for a competitor, employers might resent the dollars that they dumped into training. Can an employer require reimbursement for those instructional costs? If you are facing this situation, you may wish to engage the services of an experienced employment lawyer.
California Precedent for Training Costs Reimbursement
A recent court case pitted the city of Los Angeles and the LAPD against officers who had completed training in the LAPD police academy, but who left LAPD within a short time after hire.
In an attempt to curb the attrition rate of police officers, the city enacted a policy that required any officer who had been through academy training but who voluntarily transferred to another agency after working for less than five years with the LAPD to reimburse some training costs. The required reimbursement was prorated, and was based partly on a signed agreement indicating a five-year commitment to LAPD. In that contract, new employees agreed to reimburse the direct and indirect costs associated with employment if those employees joined another agency within one year after voluntarily terminating employment with LAPD. This contract was commonly referred to as the acknowledgment.
The details of the case involve Anthony Alvo, who, according to the city, was required to reimburse the city $34,000 after leaving the LAPD. Alvo and another former LAPD officer, Daniel Fernandez, filed a cross-complaint. Fernandez had been threatened with legal action after leaving the LAPD. The two men sought to have all related suits litigated in one coordinated proceeding, and the Chair of the Judicial Council agreed.
The case ultimately involved 43 former LAPD officers. Three of these officers had previously been found guilty of breach of acknowledgment and a judgment had been entered against them.
Labor Code section 2802 formed the basis of the appeal. It states, in part, that employers must indemnify employees for any expenditure incurred that was necessary to complete required duties. The appellants argued that since the academy is required of all new officers, it is a necessary expenditure, making the acknowledgment void.
In contrast, the city contended that because the training is required in order to receive Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification, Labor Code 2802 was not applicable. To wit, Labor Code does not specifically require employers to pay for costs associated with licensing requirements.
Complicating matters, LAPD required 420 hours of required department training in addition to the 644 hours of POST training. Because the city required recruits to attend its own academy for all of the training, the court found in favor of the defendants. [Read more…]
