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 Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 8, 2018

Supreme Court Hears Case on Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements for Transportation Workers

October 8, 2018

On October 3, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340. While the case turns on what may appear to be a simple question of statutory interpretation, the outcome could have profound consequences for employers throughout the transportation industry, for hundreds of thousands of independent... Read More

October 8, 2018

Kentucky Supreme Court Holds Employers May Not Require Arbitration Agreements as a Condition of Employment

October 8, 2018

On September 27, 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued its opinion in Northern Kentucky Area Development District v. Snyder, No. 2017-SC-000277-DG, and held that Kentucky employers may not require employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment.  In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied upon KRS... Read More

October 3, 2018

Supreme Court Hears Age Discrimination in Employment Act Case

October 3, 2018

Does language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) exempting “employers” with fewer than 20 employees apply to state governments or their subdivisions? Collin O’Connor Udell of Jackson Lewis attended the U.S. Supreme Court argument held on October 1, 2018, in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, No. 17-587. She wrote the... Read More

Related Practices