PetSmart Hit with Class Action for Allegedly ‘Saddling’ Groomers with Debt

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action claims PetSmart illegally holds employees in $5,000 of debt for two years in exchange for “free” grooming training.

The 29-page suit alleges that when employees enroll in PetSmart’s Grooming Academy, they sign a Training Repayment Agreement Provision (TRAP) that requires them to take on $5,000 of debt, plus an optional $500 for necessary grooming tools. Although the company’s website and social media advertise the Grooming Academy as free, PetSmart forgives the debt in full only after two years of employment, the lawsuit says.

The case claims the $5,000 debt, which is reduced to $2,500 after one year of work, “far exceeds any reasonable value of the Grooming Academy,” especially since many groomers make barely above minimum wage. The TRAP effectively “strips PetSmart workers of bargaining power that they could use to seek out employment opportunities in which they would be paid more or treated better,” the filing asserts.

The case alleges that PetSmart has violated California employment law by requiring employees to pay for training that is primarily for PetSmart’s benefit. Even if the training is primarily for the employees’ benefit, it is still unlawful given the workers are put in debt under “unfair and abusive circumstances” to pay for training at an unlicensed post-secondary school, the suit argues.

According to the case, the Grooming Academy consists of three to four weeks of classroom training followed by 200 supervised grooms. The lawsuit argues, however, that the advertised training is a far cry from some prospective groomers’ experience given they may “struggle for attention from overextended trainers or salon managers.”

Moreover, the complaint contends that graduates of the Grooming Academy do not receive a recognized degree or credentialing since the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education has not approved the program’s operation in California, and the state does not require any specific license or degree to work as a pet groomer.

Under the TRAP, employees must pay any amount owed to PetSmart after being voluntarily or involuntarily terminated, or risk PetSmart filing a civil action against them, the complaint asserts. The suit alleges, however, that PetSmart’s enforcement of the TRAP is inconsistent.

“Employees do not know what criteria affect the decision of whether to enforce a particular TRAP or not,” the filing says, “as store-level managers provide inconsistent and often incorrect information about the likelihood of enforcement.”

The case argues that workers who choose to leave risk aggressive collection efforts that could lower their credit score or make it difficult to pay bills, while those who stay “are also significantly harmed.”

As the case tells it, PetSmart groomers are often delegated a high volume of tasks and must work through their legally entitled breaks. According to the plaintiff, who was employed as a PetSmart bather and groomer from February to September 2021, “it was a regular practice for employees to clock out for a lunch break, as instructed by PetSmart, but continue working with their supervisors’ knowledge, because they had no other option if they wanted to complete the work required of them.”

The plaintiff explains that in September 2021, less than a year after signing the TRAP, she made the “impossible choice” to quit, go into debt and search for higher wages elsewhere. This decision was based on her manager’s advice that PetSmart may not collect the money if she brought in enough revenue for the company, the filing claims.

Nonetheless, the suit contends that a $5,500 collection ordered by PetSmart appeared on the plaintiff’s credit report in January 2021. As a result, the plaintiff claims, her credit score dropped, and she could not lease an apartment and apply for additional loans.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who worked for PetSmart in California, received training from PetSmart’s Grooming Academy, and is or has been subject to a training repayment agreement within the past four years.

The case also looks to cover anyone who worked as a pet groomer or bather at a PetSmart in California within the past four years.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.