Re: Can You Avoid Repaying Relocation Expenses Based on Employer Misrepresentations
Wow, thanks. The guy said he needed to know what state this involved and never closed the loop (nor did any other so-called expert).
Re: Can You Avoid Repaying Relocation Expenses Based on Employer Misrepresentations
I don't think state law matters very much, because you want to try to escape a clear contract provision based upon allegations of misrepresentation, but have not substantiated a case for any material misrepresentation. The bulk of your complaint boils down to your failure to do due diligence before switching to a new employer. Unless you have an actual, written contract of employment that guarantees you certain duties or perquisites, you are an at-will employee and your employer can change your job assignments and duties consistent with its wants and needs.
A company does not have to refrain from entertaining an offer for a merger or acquisition, merely because they told an employee at one point in time that they weren't actively looking to be acquired. Even assuming that a company is looking to be acquired, that information may be closely held at the top of the company. It's also not material to your situation, as it does not affect your compensation or job duties. If you are laid off or fired as a result of a merger, that will also eliminate any obligation you have to repay relocation costs.
If your department is not included in the new business after the reorganization, is it that everybody in your department will be terminated? If so, have they given an indication as to when that will occur?
Re: Can You Avoid Repaying Relocation Expenses Based on Employer Misrepresentations
Thanks for the response. My department will exist, but with fewer heads. As far as due diligence, what else could I have done except ask whether a merger or acquisition was on the table with this particular company?
The leader of the group through which I ultimately report A) is the CEO's most trusted confidante; B) owns the relo program; and C) knew of these conversations and my hire/move. The S-4 filing documents several meetings each month for the eight months prior to my hire. So if they may not have been able to disclose they were in talks, the answer to my question during my due diligence period should have been "we cant say" and not "there's a very low likelihood of that happening" and then putting it in terms of "def con" levels to illustrate where they were at the time and where they would need to be to think such a transaction was likely.