The above captioned Consumer Commercial claim having duly come on before the Court for a trial de novo on March 28, 2013. Both sides having appeared, the plaintiff, by counsel Damon A. Hagan, Esq.; and the defendant, pro se. Oral testimony having been received by the Court from both sides, exhibits having been received into evidence, and at the conclusion of the testimony, the Court having reserved decision.

The plaintiff seeks the sum of $3,212.84 ($3,500.00 less credits) under a written service contract signed by both parties, for advanced cosmetology classes taught by plaintiff, at $250.00 per class for 14 classes, with the average class being 5 hours. Plaintiff, through the testimony of Leah Pelengaris (President; hereinafter designated as Plaintiff)), asserts the in-house training was designed to enhance professional skills beyond that necessary for a professional license, with the goal of getting each employee on the working floor.

Defendant was hired to work at plaintiff's establishment on November 26, 2011. Plaintiff admits that defendant was told that she [*2]must take the in-house classes as a condition of being hired and working at plaintiff's establishment. However, defendant could take other courses elsewhere. Plaintiff testified that defendant made about $280-$300.00 per week.

Defendant testified that she had no choice in signing the contract (she was 18 years of age at the time). She admits she paid nothing toward's the classes, mainly because she learned nothing more than she already knew, from prior training received in classes at Newfield High School. On working days, defendant worked on the floor and received payment per hour and tips, and worked 42-44 hours per week. Defendant testified that she (and other girls hired and similarly situated) was not paid on the days that she took the classes. The payment by customers went to the plaintiff, and the customers were not permitted to tip. On class days, defendant worked an average of 11 hours and an additional 2 through 3 hours after closing. Defendant testified that Ms. Pelengaris constantly yelled and screamed and berated her, as well as the other girls. Defendant stated that many times the instructor did not show up and had to be substituted with other employees for the lessons. She also stated that she was required to bring her own models on each class date, and was not allowed to participate if she was unable to obtain models for a class date. She would then be told to do her homework from the previous class.

Defendant asserted she was not a licensed hair dresser, which plaintiff knew in advance. However, she was required to cut customers' hair though she did not even have a temporary license. Movement for advancement as an employee was supposed to be within the first year. However, defendant testified she was there already close to a year, and did not see any signs of imminent advancement.Indeed, she knew a similarly situated girl who was there for five years without advancement. Defendant testified one girl who worked owed plaintiff $10,000.00 for classes. Defendant stated that she gave notice to the manager on the last Tuesday she worked, telling her she was not returning. Defendant stated that five other girls left with her and did not return.

The Court determines that plaintiff has not proven her entitlement to judgment against the defendant. There are issues of whether plaintiff badgered or threatened the defendant, who had just turned 18, into signing the contract. There were no negotiations to the terms and conditions of the contract.

Indeed, plaintiff also admitted the hiring of defendant was conditioned upon her taking the subject classes. So while defendant was making about $280-$300.00 per week, she was required to pay plaintiff back $250.00 for each weekly class. The Court notes there were no end dates in the contract which indicated when the required classes would end. Strictly under the contract, it would appear that for so long as plaintiff could come up with a topic, another class could be added on, for an additional $250.00 to the plaintiff, in perpetuity. If a label had to be applied, the Court would term plaintiff's document as an adhesion contract.

The topics to be taught at the required classes, were never provided in the contract, or referred to by an addendum. The value of these classes was dubious, at best. Locked into an untenable situation, with an endless term for unwanted classes which would take away the bulk of her earnings each week, and the horrible working conditions imposed upon the workers by the domineering plaintiff, defendant did what any sane person would do - she left, without payment to plaintiff. The Court lauds defendant for her courage in doing so.

Accordingly, the Court awards judgment to the defendant and dismisses the complaint.

This memorandum constitutes the opinion, decision and order of the Court.