Paul DeCamp, Member of the Firm in the Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice, in the firm’s Washington, DC, office, was quoted in the Bloomberg Law Daily Labor Report, in “Paying to Quit or Four Months’ Notice Has Workers Feeling Trapped,” by Josh Eidelson and Zachary Mider. (Read the full version – subscription required.)
Following is an excerpt:
Last spring, a doctor for Concentra Inc., the leading US occupational health-care company, told his boss he wanted to quit. The workload of as many as 40 patients a day was too great, and the breaks were too short, he says. He’d gotten so used to inhaling his lunches in a couple minutes that he’d started racing through meals with his family, too. But Concentra wasn’t ready to let him go.
It told the doctor that it would enforce a contract clause requiring employees to give 120 days’ notice when quitting or pay a hefty fee, equivalent to his salary for the remainder of that four-month window. Management said, “We will make you pay” and “The contract will be enforced,” according to the doctor, who, like other former Concentra employees, requested anonymity because they fear retribution. So he stuck around for another four months—during which he had to turn down a couple of job offers from companies that weren’t willing to wait that long to hire him. …
Companies have legitimate reasons to seek reimbursement when their workers resign, says Paul DeCamp, who served as head of federal wage and hour enforcement under President George W. Bush. It’s more financially viable to invest in training greener workers if management can require them to either stick around or repay the company when they leave, says DeCamp, now an attorney representing employers. Still, “Employers ought to be mindful of the overall fairness of the situation and should not overreach,” he says, noting that not everything that’s legal is a good idea.
People
Member of the Firm
