Not a Member? Get access to HR news and resources that you can trust.
Here is how HR can help prevent the missteps that could cost your company big in court.
Is your employee handbook ready for the changing world of work? With SHRM’s Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
60+ new SHRM Seminar dates in 10 U.S. cities and virtually.
Expand your influence and learn how to become an effective leader -- Join us in Phoenix, AZ, October 2-4, 2017.
Despite California’s well-known public policy against noncompete agreements, an employer may require an employee to repay the costs of voluntary educational benefits should the employee choose to leave within a reasonably defined time period--and compete with the former employer--after receiving the benefit, a California appellate court ruled.
USS POSCO Industries (UPI) originally hired Floyd Case as an entry-level laborer and side trim operator. UPI faced a shortage of skilled maintenance technical electrical (MTE) workers. To address this shortage, via a memorandum of understanding with the pertinent union, UPI established a program to train a number of current employees to qualify them as MTEs. The program required 135 weeks of instruction, 90 weeks of on the job training and 45 weeks of classroom work. UPI estimated it cost more than $46,000 per employee. During the program, UPI also paid the participant’s regular wages. If a participant successfully completed the program and then passed UPI’s MTE test, he would be assigned to an MTE vacancy. Participation was voluntary, but each participant had to agree that, if he voluntarily left UPI’s employment within 30 months after completion, he would reimburse UPI $30,000 of the expense of his training, less $1,000 per month of subsequent service at UPI.
Case voluntarily enrolled and completed the program. Two months later, he resigned and went to work for another employer. When he failed to pay his $28,000 reimbursement obligation, UPI sued. The trial court ruled in favor of UPI, and the court of appeal affirmed. On appeal, Case contended the reimbursement agreement was an invalid restraint on employment under Business and Professional Code section 16600 of California law, which provides that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” The court had little difficulty rejecting his argument, however.
The court reasoned that Case’s participation in the program was voluntary, the money he agreed to pay was for advanced educational costs, and he was not restrained from leaving UPI and working anywhere else, which he in fact did. As the court explained, “repayment of the fronted costs of a voluntarily undertaken educational program, the benefits of which transcend any specific employment and are readily transportable, is not a restraint on employment.” The court distinguished two precedents: one voiding a claw back of an employee’s pension rights if he chose to compete, the other voiding a liquidated damages provision that amounted to a price for choosing to compete.
USS-POSCO Industries v. Case, Cal. Ct. App., No. A140457 (Jan. 26, 2016).
Dylan B. Carp is an attorney in the San Francisco office of Jackson Lewis. Republished with permission. © 2016 Jackson Lewis. All rights reserved.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Choose from dozens of free webcasts on the most timely HR topics.
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies