Proponents of the new law also point to the effects of the COVID 19 pandemic, a long-term care shortage in California and a projected wave of retirements, with a loss of years of clinical experience and a growing need for training.5 It seems likely that the training and training programs planned for Section 2802.1 would make recipients more attractive for positions in other mainstream hospitals. This „training“ factor can be particularly important, says Sam Caucci, CEO and founder of 1Huddle, a platform for worker training. In particular, when a staff member receives certifications that may be useful elsewhere, it may be helpful to get a refund. But agreements must be drafted correctly to survive the courts. „You can`t see that the employee is being penalized, but only to compensate the employer,“ he noted. Despite California`s well-known public policies against competition bans, an employer can ask a worker to reimburse voluntary education costs if the worker chooses to leave within a reasonable time – and compete with the former employer – after obtaining the benefit, a California appeals court ruled. But at the end of the day, it really depends on the height of the employee, the true cost of the pocket for training, the type of training program, and a judgment if attempts to recover those costs will have an impact on employee morale, he said. In a recent decision of the Fourth Appeals District, In the event of re-recognition, the court ruled that the City of Los Angeles could not require police officers to reimburse the employer`s training unless the training was required by law. Some employers require workers to have some training before hiring the worker, placing the worker in a higher position, or even maintaining a job.

In some cases, training is prescribed by law (for example. B state-mandated continuing education). In other cases, training is mandatory by the employer, but is not required by a statute or regulation. Cray this as a gain for employers. Reimbursement agreements for employer-sponsored education programs remain applicable. Well, in general, at least. The Court of Appeal distinguishes this case from another set of cases, cases of recognition, in which the same court rejected the attempt of the City of Los Angeles, certain training fees imposed by employers by the police officers who stopped prematurely. The main distinctions were that the L.A. program was both mandatory and order-specific, while the USS-POSCO program was voluntary and training was transferable to other jobs. So here`s the takeaway: employers can require employees to pay for education if the worker stops prematurely, as long as the training program was both voluntary and non-specific to the employer`s work. The question therefore arises as to whether the employer can demand reimbursement of training expenses when the labour code, section 2802, requires the employer to pay the expenses related to the employment relationship. This problem is compounded by the protection measures set out in section 2804 of the labour code, which provide that a worker`s right to compensation cannot be abolished by contract.

[4] The city also argued that section 2802 of the labour code was not applicable because state law required training in accordance with the laws of the Peace and Training Service (POST). However, the city had problems because the LAPD needed training beyond the state-mandated training. I have dealt with several cases against an employer that adopts a very similar system to deter workers from leaving their jobs within one year of hiring. Although I put forward the argument in Section 2802 of the Labour Code, there were no cases reported directly on the point, and the cases were settled in court.