Related Posts
Bowl Leader
Thought this was interesting. Across 160 teams of researchers, just about all failed to make good life outcome predictions on things like GPA, evictions, layoffs, and others. Data followed 4.5k families across 15 years, with 13k features (varied over time). Haven't looked at it directly yet, but will be turning the docs and data inside out... In the meantime, authors claim this as showing the limits of ML. Oh, and it's published in PNAS, so you know there's some big publication energy there.
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8398
More Posts
Having a sad night 🥲
Bowl Leader
Additional Posts in Consulting
Rising Star
What is a perfume that men find irresistible?
Layoffs at Walmart corporate 😬😬
6am gym stop before going to client site 💪🏻👍🏼
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
California law:
If, however, an employee was required to make expenditures in order to perform his or her job, the employer would not be able to recoup these expenses from the employee – even if the employee signed a contract agreeing to reimburse the employer. An example offered by the court is In Re Acknowledgement Cases, in which Los Angeles police officers who quit their jobs after less than five years on the force were required to reimburse the city for their training costs. The policy was ruled impermissible at court, because the officers were required to undergo the trainings.
Quick google search on recent California cases rendered the following:
“In Los Angeles, a 4th District Court of Appeal panel issued an unpublished opinion in 2015 that former police officers who left the LAPD could not be compelled to reimburse the city for their training. Because the city instituted a training program more extensive and costlier than minimum certification, it became an employer-mandated expense the City, not officers, should carry, the panel concluded. The reimbursement contract was deemed unenforceable.”
When I looked at your offer letter, it was clear that Workday training is indeed employer-mandated training for this job. And there is a legal precedence in California (your state!) with the case I just cited that supports you :)
"Generally speaking, it is unusual and very difficult to recoup the training costs expended on behalf of an employee who departs the company shortly after participating in the training session," Don Schroeder, partner at Foley & Lardner, said, warning that it would be an uphill battle for most employers.
So in conclusion, tell them to fly a kite and focus your time on more important things like getting a new job!
Stay safe!
Not familiar with the above case, but be aware that different standards apply to government bodies. Still think there’s a strong case that this is not enforceable when terminated for a reason not related to performance.
I work at Collaborative and don’t anyone in delivery that was laid off as a result of Covid-19 are you sure she was “laid off”
OP - did you know she was let go for performance reasons? That changes the dynamic.
This is like getting a college grant dependent on maintaining a B average. No B - no grant. No performance at CS - pay back cert cost. It might not seem fair but it was a condition to which she agreed.
Thanks to all for the insightful advice so far! I've included a picture of the contract that my friend signed upon joining the firm. To me the language seems vague and is open to interpretation.
Surprising they include termination by employer whether for cause or not. Agree it depends on “may” and state law. They’d also have to choose to come after you for it. They may not collect.
That's a stringent contract... It says they'll make every effort to collect and use last paycheck basically as payment. They're in Cali, so I would challenge the part about "Employee Be terminated by employer" that it should only apply if it's terminated with cause, bit should not apply to termination without cause (layoffs). And then refuse to pay any balances.
In California, they owe her last paycheck on her final day of employment anyway. Therefore, if they wanted those funds, they should have recouped them then. Has she gotten her final check yet?
Yes she got her final paycheck over direct deposit.
wont Bain or MBB be able to pay for it now that they merged? obviously Deloitte cant afford this
I know first hand they will just withhold final paychecks....
Is the lay-off for a cause or COVID related?
If for a cause, then they may be on the hook. But that is also on thin ice.
If COVID related I wouldn’t even bother hiring a lawyer. It is a slam dunk.
They will try to withhold it in the final paycheck, she should say no and if they do, get legal help
This is likely not enforceable. I think it would be worthwhile to hire a lawyer.
Correct. People put all kinds of bullshit in contracts that are not enforceable
Update: She was told that she was being laid off, but her exit form is showing "discharged."
Discharge reads as for cause termination, not lay-off. That means they could deny unemployment too.
Pound. Sand.
- employee you just laid off
Tell them to foxtrot oscar...
No. She got laid off. That was involuntary. You forfeit those funds when you vote someone out the tribe.
Not if laid off