Tuition Reimbursement Payback

[puxicorg]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? (Position was in Missouri, I live in Illinois.)

Here are the basics;

1. I received tuition reimbursement from my former employer, with the agreement that payback would take place if I did not stay for 3 years.

2. I left the company, and upon my exit interview, was given documentation - prepared by HR - with a checklist of items that had to be met before I left, including turning in my badge, laptop, company credit card, etc. One of the line items was tuition reimbursement, which had "not applicable" listed next to it. Both myself and my former manager signed and dated the form.

3. 8 months after leaving my company, I revieved a bill for the tuition reimbursement in question.

4. I sent them a letter back, telling them to reference my exit interview checklist as proof that my obligations had already been met.

5. They sent me an additional letter acknowledging my exit interview paperwork, but noting that it was a mistake that was caught in an audit (and further pointing out that I should have brought it up in the exit interview!)

My question is - which agreement is binding? Without seeing it, is the second document a contract?

I'm trying to determine if I need to get a lawyer and push back, or if it's simply a lost cause and I should pay it.

 

[swalsh411]

Why are you trying to weasal your way out of sticking to your end of the agreement? You know you owe the money; do the right thing.

If you don't pay they could sue you and I bet they would win.

 

[puxicorg]

There are several reasons. Mainly, if they made an agreement with me 9 months ago that is legally binding, why should I pay them?

If they suddenly can't find my old laptop, should I pay them for that too? (I don't have it, but if the document doesn't count for anything, what's to stop them for asking for it?)

 

[Antigone*]

There are several reasons. Mainly, if they made an agreement with me 9 months ago that is legally binding, why should I pay them?

If they suddenly can't find my old laptop, should I pay them for that too? (I don't have it, but if the document doesn't count for anything, what's to stop them for asking for it?)

You made a binding agreement with your former employer when you took the money for school, a mere clerical error does not void that agreement. It would be assinine and idiotic of you to believe that it does.

 

[puxicorg]

If I wanted personal opinions, I would go find Oprah's message board. I was hoping for some legal interpretation.

 

[Antigone*]

If I wanted personal opinions, I would go find Oprah's message board. I was hoping for some legal interpretation.

If you wanted to omit the personal opinions you would have paid for the free and correct advice you've received.

So don't pay your former employer back, we really could care less what you do. You'll be back wanting to know what to do when you get served with a law suit, so save your moniker and pass code ~ you'll be needing it.

 

[swalsh411]

I think you'll find that most personal opinions here favor doing the right thing, which also happens to be the legally correct thing in most cases. (including yours).

You are looking for justification not to be held to an agreement you made in good faith. What kind of response were you hoping for? Hopefully some of those classes you took included ethics.

 

[Antigone*]

I think you'll find that most personal opinions here favor doing the right thing, which also happens to be the legally correct thing in most cases. (including yours).

You are looking for justification not to be held to an agreement you made in good faith. What kind of response were you hoping for? Hopefully some of those classes you took included ethics.

Swalsh, judging by this poster's response to us, I'd say he/she failed miserably.

 

[Zigner]

2. I left the company, and upon my exit interview, was given documentation - prepared by HR - with a checklist of items that had to be met before I left, including turning in my badge, laptop, company credit card, etc. One of the line items was tuition reimbursement, which had "not applicable" listed next to it. Both myself and my former manager signed and dated the form.

The n/a next to the reimbursement line-item can ALSO be interpreted as meaning that you don't have to pay that in order to be considered separated from the company. But that does NOT necessarily mean you do not have to pay it.

 

[puxicorg]

So don't pay your former employer back, we really could care less what you do.

Well, at least you care, then.

Thanks for the feedback, for what it's worth. I was thinking that I had signed a legally binding contract upon leaving my old position which would count for something. They changed the vacation policy 2 months before I quit, costing me 18 days of vacation. I made financial decisions in the months after leaving, based on my cash balance. My agreement was with the company A before they were bought by company B.

But, believe me, if I end up paying them back, it's worth it not to be working for them any more.

I'll talk to a real lawyer, and go from there.

 

[puxicorg]

The n/a next to the reimbursement line-item can ALSO be interpreted as meaning that you don't have to pay that in order to be considered separated from the company. But that does NOT necessarily mean you do not have to pay it.

Thanks, that is a good point as well.

 

[eerelations]

The n/a next to the reimbursement line-item can ALSO be interpreted as meaning that you don't have to pay that in order to be considered separated from the company. But that does NOT necessarily mean you do not have to pay it.

It could also mean that, unlike all the other items on the list, the tuition fee money did not have to be returned immediately on your last day of work.

If I'd been you, I most definitely would have asked the person giving me the document what this mysterious "n/a" meant. It certainly seems that because you didn't ask, they assumed you must already have known.

But you wanted pure legal advice - so here it is:

Legally, no matter what the exit list said, you still have to repay the company. If you don't, and if it chooses to sue you, it will win. The n/a on the exit list has no standing in court, and neither does your (mis)interpretation of said n/a.

 

[puxicorg]

Legally, no matter what the exit list said, you still have to repay the company. If you don't, and if it chooses to sue you, it will win. The n/a on the exit list has no standing in court, and neither does your (mis)interpretation of said n/a.

Awesome - that's exactly what I was looking for. I additionally spoke to a lawyer on the phone, who told me essentially the same thing. He recommended pushing back to try to reduce the amount owed due to the 9 month time gap, but obviously they don't have to agree to that.

 

[Zigner]

It could also mean that, unlike all the other items on the list, the tuition fee money did not have to be returned immediately on your last day of work.

If I'd been you, I most definitely would have asked the person giving me the document what this mysterious "n/a" meant. It certainly seems that because you didn't ask, they assumed you must already have known.

But you wanted pure legal advice - so here it is:

Legally, no matter what the exit list said, you still have to repay the company. If you don't, and if it chooses to sue you, it will win. The n/a on the exit list has no standing in court, and neither does your (mis)interpretation of said n/a.

That's what I said...

 

[eerelations]

I know, I wasn't in any way whatsoever trying to offend you, I was just reiterating what you and others had said. I apologize on behalf of the OP for him/her not getting it the first time.