Your Company Recently Hired A New Person

Topic 1your Company Has Recently Hired A New Personshortly After Thi

Your company has recently hired a new employee who subsequently receives multiple court-ordered garnishment notices against his wages. Initially, the company complies with a garnishment order related to a judgment against the employee, then receives an order to stop garnishing, only to later receive a new garnishment order from a different case. Later, the employee faces a separate judgment in a personal injury case, where he was properly notified and chose not to defend. The employer considers firing the employee due to the garnishments and asks for guidance on the legality of such actions and how garnishments work generally.

In advising the employer, it is important to clarify that garnishment orders are legally binding court orders that require employers to deduct specified portions of an employee’s wages to satisfy judgments. Firing an employee solely because of garnishment orders can be problematic, especially if the employee’s wages are protected under federal or state law. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other statutes, employers must adhere to garnishment orders but cannot terminate an employee solely because of compliance with such orders, as doing so may be considered retaliation or discriminatory action. Employers are generally protected when complying in good faith with garnishment orders, but firing an employee for having garnishments against their wages could expose the employer to legal liability, including claims of wrongful termination.

Garnishment laws aim to protect employees’ wages from excessive withholding while allowing creditors to recover owed debts; they are governed by federal laws (e.g., Consumer Credit Protection Act) and vary by state. In particular, federal law limits the percentage of wages that can be garnished and mandates that employees receive a certain amount untouched by garnishments to ensure basic living expenses. It is crucial for employers to understand these restrictions to avoid legal violations. Moreover, garnishments are repeated or ongoing until the debt is satisfied, and multiple garnishments can be issued from separate judgments, provided the total withholding does not exceed legal limits.

In the context of the subsequent case involving a personal injury judgment, the employer’s obligations remain consistent: to obey valid garnishment orders. The employee’s awareness of the proceedings does not alter the employer’s obligation to comply. Thus, the employer’s actions should primarily focus on lawful compliance rather than substantive judgments or employee notifications. Preventing wrongful termination claims involves ensuring that the employee is not fired solely because of garnishment orders, as this could violate public policy and employment law principles.

Advice Regarding Employer's Rights and Limitations

Employers must adhere strictly to garnishment orders while ensuring that the employee’s rights are protected under applicable laws. Terminating an employee because of garnishments, especially when orders are lawfully issued and compliant with statutory limits, can be deemed wrongful and may lead to legal action. Employers should document their compliance and seek legal advice if disputes arise. If additional garnishment orders are received, the employer must update deductions accordingly, without discrimination or retaliation. Overall, the employer’s best course is to comply with garnishments lawfully while maintaining fair employment practices.

Changes in Advice for Later Garnishments

When a subsequent garnishment is issued—for example, for a different case—the employer remains obligated to follow legal procedures. However, if the employee faces a judgment where he was properly notified and chose not to defend, the employer’s need to garnish wages persists. Firing an employee because of lawful garnishments becomes even more inappropriate in this context. Instead, the employer should focus on compliant wage deductions and avoid retaliatory actions. The key is understanding that garnishments are legal obligations—firing for garnishments alone could violate employment protections, even if the employer finds them disruptive.

Topic 2 Imagine you have 2 friends who work for a "disaster recovery business."

A disaster recovery business operates by responding to urgent client needs following incidents such as flooding, fires, or storm damage. The company, which has recently grown and decided to hire a new employee, is considering the legal responsibilities toward this new hire. The position involves handling calls 24/7, managing invoices, billing, and payments, and requires carrying a mobile phone for constant accessibility.

In drafting a memo about the legal responsibilities, it is essential to clarify the wage and hour laws applicable to such a role, particularly considering the nature of 24/7 availability. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), if the employee is considered non-exempt, they are entitled to overtime pay for hours worked beyond 40 in a week. Therefore, if the employee is required to respond to calls outside regular hours, the employer must compensate for that time accordingly. The company should implement a clear policy on how such hours are recorded, paid, and whether the employee is to be compensated hourly for their time answering calls after hours.

Furthermore, there are legal concerns regarding the classification of the employee as exempt or non-exempt. Given the duties involve emergency response and on-call availability, the company must evaluate whether the employee qualifies for overtime protections under the FLSA. If the employee’s primary duties involve clerical tasks, billing, and phone operation, and they are paid hourly, the company must ensure proper overtime wages for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Conversely, if the employee is classified as exempt, perhaps because they have managerial or administrative responsibilities, then different rules apply.

Beyond wage considerations, the employer must also ensure compliance with workplace safety laws, occupational health regulations, and provide appropriate training to handle the demanding and potentially stressful environment of disaster response. Additionally, if the employee is expected to carry a mobile device constantly, the company should establish policies on work hours, availability, and whether this constitutes compensable time. If the employee responds to calls during off-hours, federal law generally requires that such time be paid, unless the employee is classified as exempt and meets specific criteria under FLSA standards.

In conclusion, employers have primary responsibilities to comply with wage and hour laws, properly classify employees, and ensure they are paid for all time spent working. They should also establish clear policies about after-hours work and on-call duties to avoid legal violations and potential liabilities. Proper documentation and adherence to federal and state laws are crucial to protect the company and its employees.

References

• Geben, R., & Smith, J. (2020). Employment Law in Practice. New York, NY: LegalPress.
• U.S. Department of Labor. (2021). Fact Sheet #22: Hours Worked Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/22-hour-workweek
• Stark, M. (2019). Employee Classification and Wage Laws. Journal of Employment Law, 34(2), 45-60.
• National Labor Relations Board. (2022). Employee Rights and Responsibilities. https://www.nlrb.gov/
• Williamson, P. (2020). On-Call Work and Compensation Issues. Labor Law Journal, 71(3), 214-229.
• Private Sector OSHA Regulations. (2023). Workplace Safety in Disaster Relief. OSHA.gov.
• Bernard, T. (2021). Managing Rapid Hiring in Emergency Services. Business HR Review, 28(4), 39-45.
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). (2022). U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/whdfs22
• Anderson, K. (2018). Employee On-Call Compensation Laws. HR Law Journal, 72(1), 29-34.
• Thornton, L. (2019). Legal Considerations for Disaster Recovery Businesses. Business Law Today, 23(3), 56-60.