If I’m reading correctly, the article also should also have stated that “…while the “employee” is attending an educational conference…” I’m sure the City wasn’t in attendance.
Just another fine example of IJ editorial department…
PS Sad that the accountants working for the city aren’t CPA’s – moreover, who would want to work for a governmental body and not be?
“Jose had received the bonus since 1985 when he began working for the city. The city provided mandatory training for its accountants, and some of the training was applicable for maintaining a CPA license. ”
***
this was a convention – which means it was not a mandatory training and probably was not paid for by the city. if the city had paid for the trip and expenses for the convention, i could see the city not being responsible.
so again, a frivilous lawsuit and she wound up losing money, having to pay for lawyer and court costs.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
patricia-anne, your headline should have read “…Don’t Apply at Educational Conference Which was Not Required”
If I’m reading correctly, the article also should also have stated that “…while the “employee” is attending an educational conference…” I’m sure the City wasn’t in attendance.
Just another fine example of IJ editorial department…
PS Sad that the accountants working for the city aren’t CPA’s – moreover, who would want to work for a governmental body and not be?
That’s a bit surprising, that the benefits don’t apply. California is usually pro-employee. http://www.phoenix-life-insurance.com
“Jose had received the bonus since 1985 when he began working for the city. The city provided mandatory training for its accountants, and some of the training was applicable for maintaining a CPA license. ”
***
this was a convention – which means it was not a mandatory training and probably was not paid for by the city. if the city had paid for the trip and expenses for the convention, i could see the city not being responsible.
so again, a frivilous lawsuit and she wound up losing money, having to pay for lawyer and court costs.
I am the first to complain about frivilous lawsuits, but I don’t think this was one.
Yes she lost, but it really could have gone either way. She lost on a technicality. The City got lucky.