In City of Oakland v. Hassey, 163 Cal.App.4th 1477, (June 17, 2008), a California appellate court recently rejected a police officer’s claim that a provision in his employment contract requiring him to reimburse the City of Oakland for his training expenses constituted an illegal covenant not to compete in violation of Business & Professions Code Section 16600. The former Oakland police officer agreed in his employment contract to pay back the cost of his police academy training if, once hired, he left the department in less than five years time. The officer’s training expenses were approximately $8,000.
On appeal, after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on its reimbursement claim, the officer contended that the provision violated Business and Professions Code Section 16600. Section 16600 provides “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter, 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 disagreed and found that “[n]othing prevented [Hassey] from working for another police department, or anywhere else, for that matter.”
The appellate court relied heavily on a Seventh Circuit federal case, Heder v. City of Two Rivers, Wisconsin, 295 F.3d 777 (2002), in reaching its decision. The Heder case involved a firefighter claiming that a provision in his employment contract – similar to the one at issue in Hassey – constituted an illegal covenant not to compete. The Heder court equated the provision to other valid employment incentives that employers offer to their employees. The Heder court reasoned that the residents of the city where the firefighters worked received the benefit of a more skilled fire department, and that the city might be less likely to provide that benefit if it feared that employees would leave the fire department, taking their new skills elsewhere.
The court’s ruling in Hassey, however, leaves many questions unanswered. For instance, does the decision only apply to repayment provisions in government employment contracts or only those of public safety officials for that matter? After all, the court’s reference to Heder seems to suggest that when the agreement benefits city residents, additional latitude is granted to the government. On the other hand, if the ruling does apply to private employment contracts, how much money may an employer seek in reimbursement from an outgoing employee for training expenses, if at all, before a court finds that a Section 16600 restraint exists? To some, a $8,000 bill could represent a serious impediment to changing jobs.
More importantly, however, how does the court’s ruling in Hassey square with California Labor Code section 2802? That section requires an employer to “indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties . . . ” Oakland required that all of its officers obtain licensed academy training before becoming police officers.
Interestingly, the court, in an addendum to its original decision, refused to address this issue because Hassey did not rely on Labor Code Section 2802 in his answer and because Hassey did not allege a Labor Code Section 2802 cause of action in his cross-complaint . The court also refused to address Hassey’s argument that the agreement violated Labor Code 2804 [contracts waiving benefits of this article or any part thereof are invalid] for similar reasons. Currently, Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, a case that will decide whether an employee can waive the protections of Labor Code Section 2802, is currently on appeal with the California Supreme Court. Oral argument was held on June 4, 2008 and an opinion in the case is due at any time.
Due to the many unanswered questions that the Hassey decision prompts, its application to private employment contracts remains dubious. The Supreme Court’s pending decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, LLP may provide some additional guidance.