LAPD suing 53 former officers... for leaving.

I was sent this article. I'll add a link to this thread from the "Becoming a LEO 101" thread too. ~MM4L
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAPD suing 53 former officers
Patrick McGreevy, LA Times Staff Writer

Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times, All Rights Reserved

The city of Los Angeles is suing 53 former LAPD officers for $1.6 million, alleging that they broke their employment contracts by leaving within five years of graduating from the Police Academy.

Thirty of the officers have hired an attorney to argue that federal and state labor laws prohibit the recovery of training costs.

The LAPD has required recruits to sign five-year contracts since a 1996 investigation found that some were quitting as early as the day after graduation to work for other departments that did not pay for training. Police Academy training takes seven months and costs $60,000 per officer, although the lawsuits seek amounts that have been prorated based on how long each officer served.

The city's position is being criticized as unjust by the leaders of other Southern California police departments who have hired the former LAPD officers.

"It's indentured servitude," said Frank Wills, the police chief in West Covina. "I don't think it's fair."

Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton and other city leaders say they are just trying to protect the investment made by taxpayers. Officials also say they have offered to negotiate a settlement that would allow departed officers to repay the city over a number of years.

"We think it's important that the city gets paid," said Contessa Mankiewicz, a spokeswoman for City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo. "But we don't want to create a financial burden for officers. We are very aware that people don't always have that kind of money sitting around."

The City Council adopted the contract requirement after it was disclosed that academy graduate Ceasar Escobedo took a job with the San Marino Police Department the day he graduated. The No. 1-ranked recruit in 1995, Sean Frank, departed for the Glendale Police Department after eight months in the LAPD's Pacific Division.

But West Covina Chief Wills said the LAPD "conveniently ignored the fact that they took more than one officer from San Marino. They stole officers from all over Southern California. Now there is a role reversal, which is of their own doing."

Wills said the city attorney in West Covina has expressed interest in going to court to challenge the LAPD contracts. "The legality of this is questionable," he said.

As of this week, the city had 34 lawsuits pending against officers and 19 others in the process of being filed.

In one suit, the city is going after an officer who quit the LAPD 10 months after graduating to work for the city of Santa Maria in Santa Barbara County. City officials say that officer owes them $51,000 in training costs.

Three of the officers being sued had been with the LAPD less than one year, and eight quit in less than two years, according to Mankiewicz.

Bratton said he supported recovering the costs from the officers, even though he understood why some of them did not stay with the LAPD.

"They join us and get married and have a few kids, and after a few years they get tired of doing the 70-mile each-way commute and end up taking a job in a local police department," Bratton said.

Under the 10-year-old requirement, applicants must sign a contract agreeing to repay part or all of the cost of training if they leave before completing five years on the force. Exemptions are made for officers who leave because of extenuating circumstances.

Officer Andrew Bjelland, 33, was presented with a bill for $35,000 when he left the LAPD after 2 1/2 years for the Chino Police Department.

Bjelland said he did not like what the commute from Fontana was doing to his family: "I couldn't succeed as a father and husband with the long commute to Los Angeles."

Bjelland said police recruit training can be had for $5,000 elsewhere.

Officers say less expensive training is available at local schools, including Rio Hondo College.

"I don't think the LAPD bill is reflective of the true cost," he said. "It's more of a punitive measure to keep us employed by the city."

Anthony Alvo, the first former LAPD officer to be sued, agrees.

Alvo had just left the Marine Corps when he arranged to enter the Police Academy.

He said the contract was put in front of him along with a lot of other papers, and he was told to sign it.

"You really didn't have an option," he said.

Alvo, 29, said he quit in 2000 after less than two years on the job to join the Chino Police Department, where working conditions were better.

In deciding to transfer, he cited frustration over what he saw as an overly harsh disciplinary system imposed by then-LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks, now a Los Angeles councilman, and concern over the department and its officers being tainted by the Rampart corruption scandal.

Despite serving a two-year stint in Iraq since leaving the LAPD and suffering a knee injury, Alvo is being sued for $34,000.

"If the LAPD was as good a place to work as it claims, they should have no problem retaining officers," Alvo said.

Alvo and 29 other former LAPD officers have hired Northern California attorney Jon Webster, a former policeman, who is going to court Thursday to ask that the large number of officers be certified in a class action countersuit against Los Angeles.

Webster said he believed a precedent had been set by at least five other cases in which city work contracts where struck down.

"In every instance it was considered to be an unlawful kickback to the employer," Webster said. "It is unlawful under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act for any employer to ask for money back from an employee."

Webster said the Police Department's cases would be hurt by the city's insistence that recruits go through the Police Academy because other cities allow officers to attend less expensive training programs.

"The bottom line is employees are free to come and go as they please," Webster said.

motorman4life said:

Alvo and 29 other former LAPD officers have hired Northern California attorney Jon Webster, a former policeman, who is going to court Thursday to ask that the large number of officers be certified in a class action countersuit against Los Angeles.

Click to expand...

Very - They couldn't have better representation-

So if you have a labor law prohibiting the recovery costs of training, but you sign a contract saying you'll stay on for 5 years then break it, which law superceeds the other? Seems to me that because they broke a legally binding contract, they should be held liable for the costs.

I think it is clear in case law that these types of conditional agreements are coercive and malevolent in nature and in every similar case I have seen, the court has said the employer could only enforce the agreement under one of two conditions: 1) If the employer could show they had made it clear the signing of the agreement was completely optional and not a condition of employment and/or 2) If the employer could prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence the employee had intentionally planned to violate the agreement before signing or at the time they signed it.

FWIW, over and above the previous comment; you can sign an agreement to work for less than the Federal minimum wage, but if you sue for back pay, the employer will lose every time. Similarly, this is Federal Labor Law that prohibits these types of kick-backs to the employer for training expenses.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I know several NorCal Departments that used to force these contracts on their new-hires and they lost in court. They don't do the contracts any more. I believe Pacifica PD is one of them.

So... If someone leaves LAPD to work closer to home as an officer, that person is getting sued, but if LAPD takes an officer from another city, it's ok? That doesn't seem right :| And to for Alvo that's just wrong... I mean what could you really have him do with a bad knee on the force? /sigh

Cheung said:

I mean what could you really have him do with a bad knee on the force? /sigh

Click to expand...

I went thru the academy and got hired 3 years after having ACL reconstruction - the knee hasn't slowed me down a bit.

Brian

LAPD makes it very clear during the hiring process that if you leave for another law enforcement agency within five years after completing training, they will go after you for the training costs. This is not a surprise to anyone--it is made very clear at a very early stage in the hiring process.

As for the notion that this constitutes "involuntary servitude"... that's just bullshit. These people signed a contract.

Grow up. Get a life.

interesting most companies in the area do a similar deal for tutition reimbursement. Including my own.

Papi-Chulo said:

interesting most companies in the area do a similar deal for tutition reimbursement. Including my own.

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking of. Also, the cities that give a portion of a home loan to certain professionals, and then forgive a percentage for each year they work for the agency, school, etc.
When I tested for city agencies and a couple SO's, there was a thing about paying back the cost of the Academy if you didn't stay a certain length of time.

We have a thing right now where we commit to staying with the agency for a period 3 x the length of any training courses we go to. I'm curious to see how legit that may be, although the Fed. Labor Laws are kinda squirrely.

By no means I am a cop, but I play one on TV.

Seriously. If the LAPD's proceedures were to have a private meeting discussing and signing a contract to work for a 5-year tenior beginning the day after graduation. And the department paid for all the traning cost associated with it, then I believe them officers are hosed. They would need to pay back the remaining portion of their training.

But as far as the other alligation by the officers, I see it as an apples to oranges argument. So if it is true that the LAPD took officers away from other area. It is still the officer's decision to take the offer and move. I feel that the officer's have no argument in the matter unless the LAPD did not formally stated about this binding contract.

0.02

Papi-Chulo said:

interesting most companies in the area do a similar deal for tutition reimbursement. Including my own.

Click to expand...

I guess the only difference would be whether the tuition was for courses required for you to qualify to do your job or not. If you are alreay an employee and are taking elective courses toward a voluntary degree and they opted to give you tuition money because the courses happened to be applicable toward your employment... I see it as a different thing alltogether vs. non-elective training that is hosted on-site by your employer and is required by law for you to do your job.

hmmm In my trade, if you want to go non-union less with less than 10 years of union work with your own gig, you have to pay back your training(5 year apprenticeship..around $60k at least not counting lawyer fees)+ penalties

If you dont want to be a cop then dont waste anyones time and tax payer money. It takes a special something to be a good cop imo and you need to WANT it.

I think this is a result of the much stricter rules most Law Enforcement Agencies demand for hiring.

So instead of softening their positions on certain criteria like smoking a joint at the senior prom or getting into a brawl at a bar cuz you couldnt let your best friend get jumped by 5 other dudes, the rules make impossible for teh best possible recruits to get hired.

IMO This is why LE gets such a bad rap. You have goody-2-shoes, teacher's pets, kiss-asses and Joe Squares that are the majority of teh cops hired these days.

I'm not saying all recruits are like this but its pretty obvious that the best people are being passed on for chicken shit stuff that happened when all of us were being stupid back in school.

To be honest, I think alot of these newer generation cops dont have the heart or the street knowledge to be efficient LEOs.

Something's wrong if guys that actually get hired are quitting so soon.

When i was a little kid I always thought of LE as a natural path for a career. That was not just for the guns and high speed chases but because all teh cops I knew were so cool, down to earth and didnt use their badge for a power-trip. It was like every encounter with a SFPD ended up with a name drop contest and what high school you went to.

So unless you shot someone, robbed or raped, you'd get let off with a warning and a few jokes.

Shit I could have had 2 dui's by the age of 21 but instead, the leos just had me park and have a cab take us home.


Sure, they'd bust our balls when we screwed up but it seemed like they understood prolly cuz they did the same stupid shit when they were teenagers.

its a different era now.

I guess my point is if I were a cop, I'd much rather have a reformed gang-banger as a partner than some sheltered momma's boy that would shit himself when the shit hit teh fan.

I dont care what anyone says, it take a special individual to keep his cool and do the right thing in certain situations especially when it comes to covering your partners back. Sure, police procedure helps in some situations but when it really starts happening and instinct takes over and lives are at stake, the majority of LEO recruits today dont have what it takes.

they are too perfect