Florida County Contemplates Suing Departed Firefighter for Cost of Training

Today’s burning question: I signed an agreement with my former fire department requiring me to repay them for the costs of my paramedic training if I did not remain with the department for at least two-years. A few months after I completed the training I was offered a position with a larger fire department, so I left. Can they really sue me?

Answer: They can definitely sue you, the question is going to be will they prevail.

Monroe County (FL) Fire Rescue is considering its options in pursuing firefighter Anthony Moore to recoup the costs of his paramedic training. Moore resigned from the department on May 15 to accept a position with the West Palm Beach Fire Department.

Last October, Moore signed an agreement to repay Monroe County the $7,000 it paid for his paramedic training if he failed to work at least two more years. Here is an article on the story.

The bigger question is, are such agreements actually enforceable?

Many employers find themselves providing new employees with expensive training, only to have those employees depart shortly thereafter for a similar employer who offers better wages and benefits. Historically, employers tried to use non-compete agreements to address these concerns, with employees being forced to promise not to work for a competitor for a designated period after their employment ends. Non-compete agreements are fraught with legal problems and from a fire department perspective would likely be held unenforceable.

The more common solution to training cost problems are post-employment repayment agreements. However, repayment agreements are like non-compete agreements in that they are subject to a variety of defenses. In fact many of the legal principles that developed in regards to non-compete agreements, are applied by courts to repayment agreements.

For example, repayment agreements will often be evaluated for reasonableness and proportionality, and struck down when a court finds them to be lacking in either. Thus agreements that require excessive payments out of proportion to the actual costs of the employer will likely be struck down.

The way the agreement is written is also vitally important. As a general rule in contract law, penalty provisions are not enforceable. Therefore repayment agreements drafted in such a way that repayment is deemed to be a penalty may be DOA.

There are a number of other legal theories on which repayment agreements can be challenged, including unconscionability, lack of consideration, void as against public policy, violation of the collective bargaining agreement, duress and even wage and hour violations. In 2011, the 9^th Circuit upheld an agreement against allegations that it violated the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F. 3d 1092 (9^th Cir., 2010). A key factor was that the repayment schedule did not reduce the employees’ compensation over the time he worked to below minimum wage.

However, properly drafted, reasonable and proportional post-employment repayment agreements are generally enforceable.

Here is a copy of the Gordon decision: Gordon v Okland