11-14-25 *INTERVIEW* AG Phil Weiser on the Dog Groomer Training PetSmart Settlement

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Here on my little laptop zoomi thing.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
We've got Attorney General of the State of Colorado, Phil Wiser.
He is a Democrat seeking the nomination to run for
governor here in Colorado. But today we're talking about law
and not politics. And I saw a press release yesterday
that I thought was interesting and interesting case about pet
Smart and Phil. Before I jump into sort of nuts

(00:26):
and bolts questions for you, just explain.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
The issue to us.

Speaker 3 (00:30):
There's a practice that has been used in all sorts
of context. It's known as training repayment agreement provisions, or traps.

Speaker 4 (00:39):
What happens is a employee is told at.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
Some point, oh, we need you to get this training,
or you should get this training, and then what they're
not told is they're going to end.

Speaker 4 (00:49):
Up with a huge debt.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
So they get the training and they're told okay, by
the way, it could be like this pet groomer for PetSmart.
It could be someone who does you know, cutting your hand.
It could be someone who does automobile repair. And then
they're told, okay, it's a fifty thousand dollars debt you have,
or a twenty thousand in this case is work, but
don't worry.

Speaker 4 (01:09):
We'll we'll forgive it.

Speaker 3 (01:10):
After you work here for two years, but if you
leave before that time, you owe the entire amount, and
maybe even with interest too. The term trap is appropriate here,
Ross because an employee often can feel that I can't
leave my job because I have this huge debt that
will be saddled with, and it's an abusive practice. I

(01:30):
pushed a law in Colorado that will prevent this from happening,
but we're still making sure that companies get the message.
This is no way to treat your employees. We're not
going to allow it in Colorado. This case involves, as
this said, dogcare and employees were told get this training
and they weren't told in many cases about this payment requirement.

(01:52):
And that's basic deception. It's a problem. We want to
make sure these employees get their money back.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
Okay, So let's imagine too situations.

Speaker 2 (02:01):
Let's say you don't Phil Wiser decides he doesn't like
law and politics very much, and he decides to become
a dog groomer. So now you come to my pet
smart and I say, there's two different ways this can go. Now,
So I say, Phil, we're gonna train you up and
it's free, and you're gonna know how to be a
dog groomer. And then you decide no, you'd rather be

(02:21):
governor and you quit the dog grooming thing. And then
we say you quit too soon and you owe us
the money back, and you say, well, you never told
me that before.

Speaker 1 (02:28):
So that's one scenario.

Speaker 2 (02:29):
The other scenario is you come in and I say,
we're gonna train you up, but if you quit, then
you're gonna have to pay us back, and you got
to sign this document now, and you don't.

Speaker 1 (02:39):
You don't have to do the training. It's fine, you
could go work somewhere else, but you're gonna.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
Sign a thing saying that if you quit, you got
to pay us back.

Speaker 1 (02:48):
Clearly, that first thing.

Speaker 2 (02:49):
Is a problem with the deception is the second one
legal under.

Speaker 3 (02:53):
Card law, and the act is called the Cut Out
of Restrictive Employment Agreements Act.

Speaker 4 (03:00):
There is actually a restriction.

Speaker 3 (03:01):
Even on the one where you get what would be
called let's call it normal on the job training. And
I think the category that i'd add the third category
is you're a pet smart, you're a dog groomer, and
they say we'd like to groom you to be a manager.
We're gonna help pay for your business classes, and we're
gonna invest in you getting some type of certificate or

(03:23):
maybe even an MBA, but we need you.

Speaker 4 (03:25):
To stay for a little while.

Speaker 3 (03:27):
That's okay because you're investing in something which we'll have
call it additional benefit that will be broader and there
can be the sort of you know, two year requirement
or whatever it is. But with what you just said, Ross,
it's normal on the job training. The expectation is if
you're hired in any number of employment situations and they're

(03:47):
going to train you to do the basic job, then
they can't use it as a handcuffing you to the job.
They need to give you the freedom to seek other jobs.

Speaker 4 (03:57):
And this is.

Speaker 3 (03:58):
Related to another area where that I've worked on, which
is non compete agreements.

Speaker 4 (04:02):
Even in fast food restaurants.

Speaker 3 (04:04):
Some of the fast food restaurants had said we're not
going to let you go and work for a rival.
You can't because and the theory they said is because
we taught you something, say at RB's, we don't want
you to go work at McDonald's.

Speaker 4 (04:17):
And that's basically BS.

Speaker 3 (04:20):
It was a way to restrict employee movement, and so
the challenge.

Speaker 4 (04:23):
And this is what the law gets to is what's normal.

Speaker 3 (04:26):
On the job training that companies do and shouldn't be
using as some type of restriction on employee freedom. And
what is we'll call it above and beyond. You're investing
employees and their future where it's fair to give them
a little bit of a requirement to stay.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
Okay, give me a yes or no answer on this
next thing, because Gina has a question for you as well,
So just yes or no if you can on this.
If somebody was trapped by pet Smarter any other company
and they thought they were getting trading for free and
then they wanted to leave in pet Smart or whoever
insisted you pay us them on and they did pay
the money back, do they have any recourse now to

(05:04):
go reclaim that money.

Speaker 3 (05:06):
Yes, we have committed. So let's just be clear. Pet
Smart is the one we're talking about now. But if
you're at a different company and this happened to you,
please report the issue to Stop Fraud Colorado dot gov,
Stop Fraud Kylau dot gov. And we want to look
at those situations. That sort of problem is one we
know is out there. We've had other cases that we've

(05:29):
brought here. There may be more cases coming. If you
were a pet Smart employee who actually repaid some of.

Speaker 4 (05:35):
This money, we should know who you are. We'll be
reaching out to you, but feel free reach out to.

Speaker 1 (05:39):
Us as well, Gina, Attorney General Wiser.

Speaker 5 (05:41):
While we have you, we always like to recap where
we're at with the Trump lawsuit tally of what we
see as of blade. I think last time we spoke,
we were at forty lawsuits. Where do we stand now?
And two part question where do we stand now? And
how many are we at now when it comes to
just decisions or any outcomes from these lawsuits?

Speaker 3 (06:00):
Gina, we're forty three lawsuits total. Since we talked. There
may have been one, I don't remember if we talked
about Space Command. We've had to bring litigation around snap.
We won one last week involving money being withheld from
School of Minds by Department of Energy that the School
of Minds had improperly had taken from it. We're gonna

(06:23):
work hard on getting this up on our website at
COEAG dot gov.

Speaker 4 (06:26):
Soon I'm going to.

Speaker 3 (06:27):
Give a talk that'll try to do a little bit
of a recap. But if you think about it, I
hired three additional employees, and we're having a lot of
people work harder and longer, and we've brought these cases.
It's fair to say we're probably north of a billion
dollars back in Colorado, or at least half a billion
that we wouldn't have gotten had we not stood up

(06:49):
for the rule of law and for what was right.
We'll continue to do that. We've got a number of
cases of the Supreme Court. The tariff case was argued recently.
We got another case involving birthright citizenship. These cases are
all progressing. In some cases the Trump Mistration has basically
acknowledged what they did was wrong, paid the money, and
those are settled.

Speaker 4 (07:07):
They are other ones that are still ongoing.

Speaker 1 (07:09):
Thank you, Phil, appreciate your time this morning.

Speaker 2 (07:12):
Totays happy all right, my friend Phil Wiser, Actually Phil,
Phil and I are pretty good friends, and I think
he and I disagree on more things than I disagree
with any other good friend, but we always love talking
about it, so it's always fun to have them on
the show. If some people collect stamps, some people snowboard
for their hobbies.

Speaker 1 (07:29):
Phil sus Donald Trump for his hobby or maybe not.

Speaker 4 (07:35):
He won't like well, actually, we'll come back and talk
about it.

Speaker 3 (07:38):
Because Ross you said, of the lawsuits I brought, you
thought this space command one was the most creative.

Speaker 4 (07:44):
I actually think that theory will hold up well.

Speaker 3 (07:47):
But we'll see. That's what good about lawsuits courts. We'll
tell you if you got it right.

Speaker 2 (07:49):
Phil Wiser is Attorney General of the State of Colorado
seeking the Democratic nomination for government for governor.

Speaker 1 (07:55):
Thanks for being here, Phil, talk to you soon.

Speaker 4 (07:57):
Thanks