Is this tuition reimbursement policy voidable, ambiguous, and descrimininatory?

[sables.guardian]

What is the name of your state (Maryland)?

Before I was employed, a verbal agreement was made that the company would pay for $5,000 a year in tuition with no commitments required. This verbal agreement is why I left my previous job for that company. They didn’t believe in forcing an employee to work for them a year or more after because it’s a major tax write off for them.

When it came to scheduling my classes about 7 months later, I was made to sign a newly created Tuition Reimbursement Policy. This policy did not exist (nor ever existed) on the employment website, the HR website, or the employee handbook. This was a new document.

This is the only binding aspect of the policy:

""By participating in the company Tuition Reimbursement Policy the employee agrees to stay at company for one year from finishing the last semester that company pays for. If employee fails to stay onboard for 1 year it may result in tuition repayment to company. This can be done through paycheck garnishment.""

I had to sign this for each semester (totaling signed 3 policies under 2 years). I stayed with the company for almost 2 years. They forgave the first policy, and are enforcing the other policies. The policy forgiven was still under their 12 month period which doesn’t follow their own policy. They also don’t state anywhere the conditions an employee "may" have to repay the tuition. I was a good employee, worked many extra hours of unpaid time, helped them bring in a lot of money in contracts.

Once I put my 2 weeks in, they angrily demanded the money and threatened to take it out of my paycheck. I told them no. The company had never sent me a bill despite my requests. I wrote them an initial letter highlighting the promises they made, and how on numerous occasions they told me to consider the tuition apart of my salary package and discussed the letter with them before I left. Once the attorney got involved and said he would go straight to court if I didn’t pay, I told the attorney that once I received my outstanding paychecks (which were more than the tuition), we can revisit the subject. They took it to court without trying to mediate. I am currently representing myself.

I was not the only person or employee that had the same verbal agreement, and they are not going after other employees that left before completing their policies. They also had employees that didn’t sign any policies.

How enforceable is the policy? I feel like their terms are voidable, ambiguous, and that I am being discriminated against.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (Maryland)?

Before I was employed, a verbal agreement was made that the company would pay for $5,000 a year in tuition with no commitments required. This verbal agreement is why I left my previous job for that company. They didn’t believe in forcing an employee to work for them a year or more after because it’s a major tax write off for them.

When it came to scheduling my classes about 7 months later, I was made to sign a newly created Tuition Reimbursement Policy. This policy did not exist (nor ever existed) on the employment website, the HR website, or the employee handbook. This was a new document.

This is the only binding aspect of the policy:

""By participating in the company Tuition Reimbursement Policy the employee agrees to stay at company for one year from finishing the last semester that company pays for. If employee fails to stay onboard for 1 year it may result in tuition repayment to company. This can be done through paycheck garnishment.""

I had to sign this for each semester (totaling signed 3 policies under 2 years). I stayed with the company for almost 2 years. They forgave the first policy, and are enforcing the other policies. The policy forgiven was still under their 12 month period which doesn’t follow their own policy. They also don’t state anywhere the conditions an employee "may" have to repay the tuition. I was a good employee, worked many extra hours of unpaid time, helped them bring in a lot of money in contracts.

Once I put my 2 weeks in, they angrily demanded the money and threatened to take it out of my paycheck. I told them no. The company had never sent me a bill despite my requests. I wrote them an initial letter highlighting the promises they made, and how on numerous occasions they told me to consider the tuition apart of my salary package and discussed the letter with them before I left. Once the attorney got involved and said he would go straight to court if I didn’t pay, I told the attorney that once I received my outstanding paychecks (which were more than the tuition), we can revisit the subject. They took it to court without trying to mediate. I am currently representing myself.

I was not the only person or employee that had the same verbal agreement, and they are not going after other employees that left before completing their policies. They also had employees that didn’t sign any policies.

How enforceable is the policy? I feel like their terms are voidable, ambiguous, and that I am being discriminated against.

The entire policy needs to be read in its entirety, as will any other policy or agreement that you signed.

Most agreements that are signed by both parties are considered legal and binding. The parties who sign an agreement are presumed to have read the agreement and understood all of its terms before signing. Whether there are any unenforceable provisions in what you signed can best be determined by an attorney in your area who can personally review the documents and go over the facts of the oral agreement.

I think it is a mistake for you to try to represent yourself if the other party has an attorney ... and especially if you are thinking of throwing out words in court like voidable, ambiguous and discrimination.

Good luck.

 

[justalayman]

I wrote them an initial letter highlighting the promises they made, and how on numerous occasions they told me to consider the tuition apart of my salary package and discussed the letter with them before I left.

either that was a Freudian typo (slip) or it explains why you misunderstand the situation.

apart- separate from

a part- included in the whole

I was not the only person or employee that had the same verbal agreement,

but you signed the written agreement when you did come on board. That will be seen as an amended policy which since it took place at a later date, supersedes the verbal (and likely impossible to prove) agreement.

and they are not going after other employees that left before completing their policies

they did say "may" in the agreement. It is discretionary.

They also had employees that didn’t sign any policies.

were you one of them? Nope. What others agreed to in terms of a contract is between them and the employer. As long as the difference was not based on some form of illegal discrimination, completely legal.

How enforceable is the policy?

from the excerpt posted, it appears likely to be enforceable

I feel like their terms are voidable

feelings don't count. You must be able to give a reason the contract is voidable. So far you haven't shown anything here that would suggest it is voidable

, ambiguous,

I see no ambiguity. You stay for 1 year after your last semester you received reimbursement and all is forgiven. You do not stay that year and you repay the company what they paid for tuition. That's pretty clear.

and that I am being discriminated against.

that may be but is it illegal discrimination? They are demanding repayment from you (and unless you know all employees that have ever availed themselves of this benefit, you surely cannot say you are the only one ever required to repay the money) for some reason where they forgive others indebtedness. There must be some reason. Any ideas?