Search form

Georgia Garnishment Ruling Modified by Judge, No Longer Applies to Wages

By Todd Van Dyke and Justin R. Barnes
  • October 9, 2015

Revising his September 8 decision that Georgia’s garnishment statute is unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Marvin H. Shoob has issued an order stating that his ruling does not apply to wage garnishment cases filed against a judgment debtor’s employer. Strickland v. Alexander, No. 1:12-CV-02735-MHS (N.D. Ga. Oct. 5, 2015).

Judge Shoob’s earlier ruling also enjoined Gwinnett County, where the case arose, from issuing any garnishment summons. Accordingly, the judge modified his injunction on the Gwinnett County Clerk, explicitly stating that his decision does “not apply to continuing wage garnishments filed against a judgment debtor’s employer.”

In response to the judge’s October 6 ruling, the Gwinnett County Clerk issued a directive to the Court for the Clerk’s office to begin issuing wage and support garnishment summons and accept funds sent to the court for wage and support garnishment actions. Other county courts, including Fulton County and Cobb County, had issued similar standing orders to stay garnishment cases following the September 8 ruling. The Fulton County has lifted its standing order to stay garnishment cases and is accepting monetary deposits into its registry.

Employers should continue to garnish as usual, keeping in mind to garnish only monies, such as wages, that are subject to garnishment, until instructed by a court otherwise. Further, employer who were instructed to not send funds or were returned funds due to a court’s prior notice should resend any withheld funds to the courts immediately. If an employer receives a notice from a court regarding how to handle garnishments, the employer should comply with the notice in answering garnishments.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this and other workplace developments.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

April 16, 2019

Indiana Court Declines to Expand At-Will Employment Exception

April 16, 2019

Reaffirming Indiana’s “strong” presumption of at-will employment, the Indiana Court of Appeals has declined to expand the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine to include an employee’s mistaken belief that he was subpoenaed to testify at an unemployment hearing. Perkins v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, No. 18A-CT-... Read More

April 2, 2019

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Its ‘Similarly Situated’ Standard for Workplace Discrimination Claims

April 2, 2019

The proper standard for comparator evidence in cases alleging intentional discrimination is “similarly situated in all material aspects,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has clarified in an en banc ruling. Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., No. 15-11362, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8450 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019). The... Read More

March 28, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Agency-Deference Doctrine

March 28, 2019

Should courts defer to agency interpretations of their own regulations so long as the interpretations are reasonable, even if a court believes another reasonable reading of a regulation is the better reading? In Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), the U.S. Supreme Court... Read More

Related Practices