Former boss wants reimbursement for affiliatin dues

Status
Not open for further replies.

jolt9157

New Member
Recently quit (Jan 25th, 2010) as associate veterinarian at small animal practice in Chicago for another offer (offer was made Jan 2010). Owner paid 2010 affiliation dues and malpractice insurance in November 2009 (prior to aforementioned job offer).

Upon news of resignation (gave 60 days notice), owner wants reimbursement for affiliation dues (wants to deduct from vacation pay). New job refuses to reimburse for said expenses.

Do I have any recourse on my own part? To which party?
 
If the owner paid your dues then you are likely going to have to reimburse that cost. The new employer is not obligated to pay them.
 
Why should your former employer be responsible for the affiliation dues of someone who no longer works for him?
 
Understandable - wanted to cover all my bases beforehand.

However, affiliation dues are part of benefits package offered by new job. Still they refuse to reimburse for said dues even if I provided an itemized statement signed by my former boss. Benefits (affiliation dues, continuing education budget, insurance) kick in after 90 days employment at new job.
 
How is affiliation dues any different from continuing education seminars that a business pays for? The Vet could have sent her to a $2,500 seminar last month and now she resigns. She would not be expected to reimburse the Vet! That is the cost of doing business. Unless there was a legal agreement signed that said costs would be repaid if employee leaves, there is NO legal obligation.

Jolt9157 never said if she had an employment contract or not.
 
Because membership in a professional association is often (as it sounds like here) in the name of the individual, NOT in the name of the company. The individual benefits from the membership regardless of whom he is working for.

And honestly, it would not be illegal for an employer to want reimbursement for the costs of a seminar it sent the employee to, if the employee resigned soon afterwards. They may or may not prevail if they sued for such reimbursement, but it would be much more likely they would win such a suit for professional association dues than for seminar tuition, since attendance at the seminar was part of the employee's work day. They're two different things.

The ex-employer wanting reimbursement is not only legal but, IMHO, fair. Now, fair doesn't necessarily equate with legal, but unfair doesn't necessarily equate with illegal, either. If the ex-employer wants to file a small claims action for this reimbursement, I would guess they would have at least a 50-50 chance of prevailing.
 
Patricia,

Not knowing the facts, we are making assumptions here. I would assume the affiliation dues and the malpractice insurance paid by the Vet Practice were requirements which benefited the Vet Practice. The Vet Practice probably said to the new associate, "if you want to work here you must have affiliation and have malpractice insurance which we will pay for". If the veterinarian practice submits these expenses on its 1120 tax return, then it has benefited from the expenditure (even though the affiliation and insurance is in the employee's name). If required by the employer and paid by the employer and for the employer's benefit, then I again ask why should there be a legal obligation for reimbursement?
 
How does the OP's membership in the affiliation benefit the employer, after the OP no longer works for them?
 
cbg:

It doesn't directly, yet the affiliation dues were probably paid for as an annual membership. Perhaps the employee did not need or want the affiliation after leaving the employment. She should not be required to pay for the remainder of the membership term unless she wishes to. If the employer was worried about the potential of this, they should have incorporated this as part of an employment contract. (Again, I am making the assumption that the affiliation was a requirement stipulated by the employer).

Unless reimbursed by the employee the company WILL benefit from the tax deduction of the expense.
 
I think the assumption you are making is a very big one. Plenty of companies pay for affiliation dues without making membership a requirement of employment.
 
Plenty of companies pay for affiliation dues without making membership a requirement of employment.

I ask then, why do the companies pay for it unless it is for their benefit too?

If they pay for it as an employee benefit to attract and retain employees, then it is indirectly a benefit for the company. And again, we are back to it is a "Cost of doing business".
 
We've gotten off the point here. The OP can either repay it or not. If the ex-employer wants to sue, he either prevails or it doesn't. Our opinions mean nothing.
 
Upon news of resignation (gave 60 days notice), owner wants reimbursement for affiliation dues (wants to deduct from vacation pay). New job refuses to reimburse for said expenses.

Do I have any recourse on my own part? To which party?

The above was the original question. The owner has no right to deduct this from her vacation pay and it would be illegal if he tried without her permission.

Her recourse is to either reimburse the owner or not. My belief is that she has NO legal obligation to reimburse the owner.

The benefit she derives from the remaining months of the affiliation past her departure from the 1st employer is simply a cost of doing business for that employer.
 
Last edited:
Patricia,

On what legal basis would the employee be obligated to repay? If the employer sued what would he tell the judge? The employee did not ASK for the employer to pay for the affiliation dues. Thus I would see the judge asking, "why did you (the employer) pay for the dues?" The only possible answers are: 1) to benefit the employer 2) a benefit (gift) to the employee. If #1, the employee does not reimburse, if #2 the employee also does not reimburse because it is a gift.

If my logic is incorrect, please indicate a legal basis.

ps: I'm not being argumentative, I simply find this interesting banter.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking it could be the preponderance of the evidence as to whether this was a benefit to the employee that "benefitted" him personally MORE than it benefitted the employer. But I'm not an attorney. That's why I said it could probably go either way.
 
Granted, I'm not an attorney either and I'm looking at it from the angle of my profession as an accountant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top