I was hired at my mother's work through connections as a RN. It is a subacute/rehab facility. During the "interview", I was not asked any nursing interview questions and was told about what the Director of Nursing was looking for, how she feels about hiring new grads, how new grads leave after a few months costing her time & investment, the recent creation of a nursing contract this January, her anecdote of how much she paid to breech her contract, and to sign the contract and the rest of the papers. I was not told what the penalty would be if I broke it, nor does it say what the penalty is on the contract.
All the contract says is: "[Header: the institution name, motto] [Title] CONTRACT AGREEMENT [body] I, [KitKat, RN], agree to sign up for a two-year contract with the [institution] as a Full-time Registred Nurse. [New body] This letter will serve as a binding agreement that I fully understand that I will be an employee at the "institution" for at least 2 years, unless I am subject for termination. [My signature] [DON's signature] [bLANK administrator signature because no person was present] and a [bLANK witness signature because there was no witness present either]"
I am displeased because I do not feel I was given quality training during my orientation. Also, out of my 3 weeks of orientation I was told during the interview that I will only be paid for 5 days, so the rest of orientation for up to 1 month of orientation there is no pay. The DON asked for personal recommendations of other RNs I know, so I recommended my classmate who is about in her mid-50s and she discriminated her age and told me not to recommend "people older than [her]" because she might not be able to do all the kinds of work needed in this facility.
As each day passes that I work here, I begin to feel more and more disloyal to this company. I wish that I did not feel intimidated to sign the contract, and wished that I asked questions to clarify all the details of this contract. I've never been in such a predicament before or known someone who has been. I was also told by a friend that a contract should be notarized and that at the signing of a contract, I should be given "adequate consideration" providing the prospective employee with something of adequate value in order for the contract to be enforced e.g. specialized training or a bonus, but I was not given anything. This is a subacute/rehab facility that does not provide any special training in a critical or special unit which I think are usually found in hospitals.
I was accepted into a bachelors of nursing program and I believe that I will be able to be considered for hospitals and do not plan of staying here for 2 years, but to gain experience for at most 1 year. I would like to find out if this contract is defunct which will allow me to leave whenever I please without having to pay out a "breech of contract" penalty fee.
Google Hassey v. City of Oakland, tried in the First Appellate District of California. A repayment clause required for specialized training was found completely legal and binding. Requirements include:
The cost is called a "repayment" for training, education, etc. and not a "penalty"
The cost of training needs to be specified and itemized
The facility should consider prorating the full repayment amount
Not exactly accurate again. I am kind of familiar with that case and in that case it is very relevant to point out the the person who originally filed the suit was an officer in California. That is, a PUBLIC employee.
Federal law specifically allows continued service agreements†with government employees. That law says agreements can require continued service at least equal to three times the length of the training period.†If you don't continue for the required period, you can be made to repay the amount of the additional expenses incurred by the Government in connection with†your training. But, only if you quit—not if you're fired.
Klone, my point is that it seems like a lot of seniors members on this site have no qualms about hospitals forcing new grads to sign contracts that haven't not been consistently proven to pass muster in the court of law. A lot of members think these "contracts" are "absolutely legal." This is not wholly accurate, and is FALSE under MOST of the cases based on case studies. Repayment clauses for training provided is absolutely enforceable but only under the right circumstances and under very strict circumstances, and in the private sector absent a noncompete agreement, enforceability is even more tenuous.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
Repayment clauses for training provided is absolutely enforceable but only under the right circumstances
Of course. Nobody is arguing that. And I think everyone here is in agreement that the "contract" in the OP's example would not hold water under scrutiny. But to say that repayment clauses in general are never going to be enforceable or legal, and likening it to slavery, is inaccurate and hyperbolic.
As far as non-competes - in Colorado, anyway, they generally also hold no water. Twice my husband has been asked to sign one, and he has alternately said "Um...no" or in the other case, said that sure, he'd sign it but it doesn't matter because it's not legally enforceable. They didn't ask again.
I haven't had a chance to read all the replies but I would suggest speaking to a lawyer. From the way you described the contract, it doesn't seem like it would hold up in court. Does it say what the penalty is for quitting prior to a certain time frame? Usually there is a certain monetary amount spelt out in the contract. The whole thing sounds off.
As for the 5 days pay, I'm pretty sure this is illegal. Hourly employees must make at least minimum wage for the time they are working, even on orientation. It sounds like someone is trying to take advantage of you.
Of course. Nobody is arguing that. And I think everyone here is in agreement that the "contract" in the OP's example would not hold water under scrutiny. But to say that repayment clauses in general are never going to be enforceable or legal, and likening it to slavery, is inaccurate and hyperbolic.
Well I guess we are in agreement then. I think the OP case is very obvious and whatever she signed is not a contract, But my post was for others who have signed similar contracts under more favorable conditions. The wording on these documents must be so ripe for these contracts to be enforceable that IMHO most hospital residency contracts WILL NOT PASS THAT MUSTER. That is my whole point. Sure they CAN BE enforceable but based on case review they will not be. Also I don't think the slavery reference is hyperbolic at all, like I said some courts have used the term "indentured servant" to refer to employees who basically have no choice but to work for their employer because leaving would be so prohibitively expensive.
While I encourage new grads to read anything before they sign it, when acute care contracts are becoming more prevalent, what realistic option does the new grad have? I despise these contracts because they seem to me more punitive in nature rather than an honest hospitable trying to recoup an unforeseeable expense. If hospitals want employees to stay they should create favorable conditions, writing a few words on a document and having someone who is desperate for a job sign it is unconscionable and illegal MORE OFTEN than not.
This contract is not worth the paper it is written on. It does not meet any of the formal requirements of a contract. In order to be valid there has to be a "meeting of the minds" as to what the contract terms are. There is no meeting of the minds here because the penalty is not defined. They would have a very, very hard time enforcing this in any court in the US. If I were you, I would get out now because I'm not working for free under any lawful contract let alone something this woman has pulled out of her....... I'd love to see them try to enforce this "contract".
Precisely.
I had been scrolling down this thread, reading and thinking "there's NO POSSIBLE WAY" this can be enforced since the "enforcement" would mean you are obligated to work for them regardless of pay, regardless of benefits, regardless of ANYTHING, and....if you don't, then what?
This 'contract' does not spell out the expectation of hours worked weekly or monthly; it does not allow for a single day off. It does not specify the hourly wage or salary you should expect in return for your "serving" two years. Suppose the facility decides that now you are to work 12 hour days, six days per week. And every other week is nightshift. And they would like to drop your pay to five bucks an hour. According to this contract.....agreeable? Obviously not, but where does it say they must do otherwise?
IOW.....this is not a valid contract, period.
You cannot agree (regardless of the term "fully understand") to work unspecified hours for unspecified pay for a period of two years, without any considerations as to what occurs if you do NOT do this. Essentially, this contract specifies Indentured Servitude, but without the caveat of earning your 'freedom' at the end of the two years! Completely absurd, and completely a joke as far as 'contracts' go.
This doesn't appear to be a well-written contract, as it leaves multiple loopholes for the employee, but there is nothing about it that makes it automatically unenforceable or something that can't be called a contract. All of the components of the contract are ones that can legally be entered into between an employer and an employee.
The absence of a specific penalty for violating the contract does not mean there can be no penalty imposed, it just means it would have to be determined by a court in a civil suit. Having a court determine penalties when a contract is breeched is actually a pretty common purpose of civil cases.
Specializes in Psychiatry, Community, Nurse Manager, hospice.
Good discussion. There is an important distinction between repayment and penalty.
Repayment of tuition, for example, is legit when it is spelled out.
Penalty is not legit. Even when it is spelled out.
OP, you don't need a lawyer to quit your Job.
You will need help only if they decide not to pay you, and in that case you should still not hire a lawyer, but go to the department of labor and to the local police department to file a report for theft of services, which is a crime.
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
go to the department of labor and to the local police department to file a report for theft of services, which is a crime.
DoL, yes. But I can guarantee that if the OP shows up at the local police station, they'll laugh her out of the building. Trust me, they have more important things to deal with, and they're certainly not the right venue for the complaint (lawsuit, perhaps; police report, no).
DoL, yes. But I can guarantee that if the OP shows up at the local police station, they'll laugh her out of the building. Trust me, they have more important things to deal with, and they're certainly not the right venue for the complaint (lawsuit, perhaps; police report, no).
Agree. Even when one is able to quote written documents stating that they are "a" venue for a complaint, (abuse of children, elders), they may deftly pass the buck. If they don't want to take a report or act on a complaint, they most definitely will not.
Specializes in Psychiatry, Community, Nurse Manager, hospice.
You should absolutely file a police report if and when your employer refuses to pay you, because it is a crime called theft of services. That hasn't happened yet. But if it does, that is my suggestion. Of course, another person has offered a guarantee that you will be laughed out of a police department for filing a complaint for theft of services. I'm telling you that it's a real thing, a crime to be reported, far more important than much of the petty nonsense police officers deal with on a daily basis.
You essentially do not have rights that you don't know you have. I'm trying to tell you that no one can make you pay a penalty to quit your job, but if you don't believe that it doesn't matter. I'm trying to tell you that the law protects you if someone steals your services. We aren't ruled by corporate
kings, at least not yet!
You have choices, you can quit your job, walk away with no regrets, get a better job, and if they screw you on your pay check call the DOL and file a police report.
Or... stay at your job out of fear of bogus penalties.
Or... pay a lawyer a few hundred to tell you that you're allowed to quit your job.
Or. .. let someone steal from you with impunity because you're afraid of being laughed out of a police station.
You need to contact an attorney to evaluate your current position/obligation. We cannot begin to address the issues that exist in your current position.
I have to disagree. This is not complex.
Just because you sign something, does not make it legally binding.
It is simple. You cannot be forced to work anywhere, period. You are not an upper-level executive. You are a nurse. I have seen companies do this before, ask them to sign worthless contracts so they are afraid to quit.
I've asked many of the nurses there and a staff member about the 5 days only pay for orientation, and the nurses say it's the same with them and the schedule maker claims that they don't have funding as hospitals that pay the full orientation period e.g. up to 6 weeks, depending on the hospital. But thank you dishes for your input, as well, having 2 opinions to consult with a lawyer I will make sure to follow through.
This too, is laughable. Do you really think an employer has a choice in how they pay you? They do not.
Quit your job and if they don't pay you your FULL hourly wage for every hour you put in there, you need to file a complaint with the labor board. I have a feeling a lot of nurses are going to get back pay.
A lawyer is going to cost you $250 an hour. This situation isn't worth it because it's not a difficult case. The DOL will take care of everything for you.
.thumb.jpg.e7b5bd336d518053002d5b4dbeef882b.jpg){kind=small}
technofreak
40 Posts
Not exactly accurate again. I am kind of familiar with that case and in that case it is very relevant to point out the the person who originally filed the suit was an officer in California. That is, a PUBLIC employee.
Federal law specifically allows continued service agreements†with government employees. That law says agreements can require continued service at least equal to three times the length of the training period.†If you don't continue for the required period, you can be made to repay the amount of the additional expenses incurred by the Government in connection with†your training. But, only if you quit—not if you're fired.
Klone, my point is that it seems like a lot of seniors members on this site have no qualms about hospitals forcing new grads to sign contracts that haven't not been consistently proven to pass muster in the court of law. A lot of members think these "contracts" are "absolutely legal." This is not wholly accurate, and is FALSE under MOST of the cases based on case studies. Repayment clauses for training provided is absolutely enforceable but only under the right circumstances and under very strict circumstances, and in the private sector absent a noncompete agreement, enforceability is even more tenuous.