Employment contracts...

[lan12]

Hello,

I've read on here that some people do not want to go to Sheriff's Departments because of the the lengthy jail time. That made me curious and got me wondering. Is there a contract that new officers/deputies sign upon hiring that keeps them with the same department for a certain amount of time? I hear people complaining about the jail time but couldn't they just lateral away to a PD?

Thanks.

[IronBruin]

LAPD (obviously not a SO) is the only one that I know of, and the contract is 5 years. I'm sure that there are others though.

[LA DEP]

FYI........LAPD got sued (and lost.....big time) behind the 5 year contract.......they might still try and get you to sign it though.....

As far as lateraling away to another PD, we were losing lots of people to that a few years ago.......it is not happening as much now......esp. considering that not many agencies are hiring right now......

[kaphow]

kind of the same page as LA DEP...lateraling is an option, provided the department you have your eye on is hiring. but IMO jail time has plenty of advantages. you will develop an understanding of how to interact with your new "clientele". you establish command presence, and the flexible schedule makes it easy to finish school or something along those lines. i personally like the guaranteed days w/o court so i can catch up on boxing, working out, etc.

[creolecop]

Those contract have become a big thing here in Louisiana. Mostly 2 yr contracts.

Actually LAPD tried to sue to recover money as per their employment contract. To my knowledge they were the first case to test these contracts. LAPD sued, and lost, and out of it I believe a judge wrote an opinion on it.

They not only could not recover the money, the judge said they are not legal. They can only sue to recover BONUS, or sign on money. If they hire you knowing you need training and equipment, that is the chance and responsibility they assume when they hire you. According to a judge that is.

They know there are really no teeth behind them, but to the unsuspecting new hire, it gives them a sense of obligation right from the get go.

[DAL]

The decision of a trial court has no precedential value, and likely would depend on the wording of the specific contract. I am dubious that the decision is correctly described here. Another source to which I do not have full access (the California Employment Law Advisor -- http://www.employeradvice.com/public/department61.cfm) describes a 2008 decision as follows: "Court Approves Training Costs Repayment Agreement, But Dings Employer for Recouping the Debt from Final Paycheck."

I do not see anything wrong in principle with a contract that requires a minimum number of years of service. If an agreement to repay a bonus is enforceable, then the salary and contract could be restructured to have a lower salary with a higher bonus.

According to an AELE article written in 2007 (http://www.aele.org/law/2007FPMAR/2007-03MLJ201.pdf), reported decisions in 8 states had upheld reimbursement contracts, and no reported decisions had invalidated them.

[creolecop]

The decision of a trial court has no precedential value, and likely would depend on the wording of the specific contract.


Correct, but it is the only known case to have been tried envolving LE agencies using contracts to keep people and it lost. That inevitably will be looked at by some judge who covers a simular case.

There was a department close by me that done away with contracts after this verdict came out, as they felt given the ruling on this case would impact them there from ever enforcing it.

It is sort of a precedent in a way, but is no guarantee that it will be followed by the next. Just look at the ninth circus, judges differ with them all the time. Though for now, this is the only known contested case. Personally I'm against contracts. If departments pay their people right and treat them right, they will retain a whole lot more that way then with some piece of paper.

[DAL]

Correct, but it is the only known case to have been tried envolving LE agencies using contracts to keep people and it lost. That inevitably will be looked at by some judge who covers a simular case.

Perhaps you should look at the AELE article. I posted the link.

B- Cases upholding reimbursement agreements:
● Florida: Strong v. Williams, 1980 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14185/at 5-f , 89 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P33,929 (M.D.Fla.).
● Illinois: Village of Montgomery v. [John] Thompson, #SC-KA-97-3820 (Ill.Cir.Ct., Kane Co. 1998).
• Georgia: City of Pembroke v. Hagin, 391 S.E.2d 465 (Ga. App. 1990).
• Missouri: Smith v. Kriska, #ED82062, 113 S.W.3d 293, 2003 Mo. App. 205 Lexis 1335 (2003).
• New Jersey: New Jersey Transit Auth. v. N.J. Transit PBA L-304, #A-5710-96T5, 314 N.J. Super. 129, 714 A.2d 329, 1998 N.J. Super. Lexis 342, 158 LRRM (BNA) 3064 (1998), affirming #97-125, 23 NJPER (LRP) ¶28,137, 1997 NJPER (LRP) Lexis 61 (NJ-PERC, 1997).
• North Dakota: Bowbells Public School Dist. v. Walker, 231 N.W.2d 173, 1975 N.D. Lexis 164 (N.D., 1975); Bottineau Public School Dist. v. Zimmer, 231 N.W.2d 178, 1975 N.D. Lexis 163 (N.D., 1975).
• Ohio: Tremco Inc. v. Kent, #70920, 1997 Ohio App. Lexis 2367 (8th Dist.), and Carlson Ambulance Transport v. Fischbach, #2699-M, 1998 Ohio App. Lexis 1556 (9th Dist.).
• Wisconsin: Heder v. City of Two Rivers, Wis., 295 F.3d 777, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 13832, 7 WH Cases 2d (BNA) 1665 (7th Cir. 2002).
C- Cases rejecting reimbursement agreements: None!