Total Articles: 26
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 20, 2018
An insurance company named as a garnishee in a garnishment action is not a “financial institution” under Georgia’s garnishment statute when the garnishment is seeking earnings owed to its current or former employees.
FordHarrison LLP • November 20, 2017
Executive Summary: Georgia’s recent Restrictive Covenant Act, enacted in 2011, does not directly address non-solicitation of employees a/k/a non-recruitment covenants, thereby leaving such provisions subject to the principles developed by courts through “common law” (i.e. case law). Because Georgia common law is not well developed on the requirements of employee non-solicitation covenants, employers often second guess the enforceability of such covenants. Fortunately, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently provided some clarification on these covenants in CMGRP, Inc. v. Gallant, No. A17A1168 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2017), where it made clear that non-solicitation of employees covenants do not require geographic or material contact limitations to be enforceable.
FordHarrison LLP • July 12, 2017
Overview: On May 8, 2017, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed Senate Bill 201, now known as Act 203, into law. The law went into effect on July 1, 2017. In short, the new law requires covered employers, who provide paid sick leave to employees, to allow those employees to use some sick leave to care for immediate family members. The law does not create a new cause of action, which means an employee cannot bring a private suit against her or his employer under the new law.
Ogletree Deakins • June 30, 2017
Georgia’s Minimum Wage Law (O.C.G.A. § 34-4-1 et seq.) already prohibits local governments from requiring employers to pay employees a wage rate that exceeds what is required under state or federal law. This same law also prohibits local governments from requiring employers to provide employment benefits not otherwise required by state or federal law. And on May 8, 2017, Governor Nathan Deal signed a law that adds an amendment further prohibiting Georgia localities from passing “predictive scheduling” ordinances.
Ogletree Deakins • June 28, 2017
On May 8, 2017, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed into law the Family Care Act, a new statute requiring certain employers to allow their employees to use up to five days of their available paid sick leave to care for immediate family members. This new law takes effect on July 1, 2017. What follows are several important questions and answers regarding the Family Care Act’s requirements, as well as a number of key takeaways for employers.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • May 16, 2017
Beginning July 1, 2017, large employers in Georgia that offer paid sick leave will be required to permit their employees to use some of it to care for their immediate family members.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 12, 2017
Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has signed into law a measure preempting any local wage laws or requirements that employers compensate employees for changes related to employee schedules. Act 221 (H.B. 243) continues Georgia’s tradition of promoting an employer-friendly environment, particularly for retail businesses and restaurants.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 26, 2016
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is fighting a Gainesville, Georgia, magistrate judge’s recommendation that would restrict its new regional worker-safety program aimed at poultry processing facilities.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 08, 2016
The “Protecting Georgia Small Businesses Act” amends Georgia’s Labor and Industrial Relations Code to provide that neither a franchisee nor a franchisee’s employee is considered an employee of a franchisor for “any purpose.” However, the amendment does not apply to the Georgia Workers’ Compensation Code. The Act goes into effect on January 1, 2017.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • December 17, 2015
In-home personal care employees in Georgia were covered by the state’s minimum wage law, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled, notwithstanding the fact that those employees were exempt from the minimum wage requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Anderson v. Southern Home Care Services, et al., No. S15Q1127 (Nov. 23, 2015).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 13, 2015
Legislation overhauling Georgia’s probation system also affects Georgia’s First Offender Act (“GFOA”) (O.C.G.A. § 42-8-60 et seq.), which protects certain criminal defendants from being disqualified from consideration for employment based on their criminal record.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 12, 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).
FordHarrison LLP • October 07, 2015
Executive Summary: Nearly one month after Federal Judge Marvin Shoob, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, ruled that Georgia's garnishment law is unconstitutional, on Monday, October 5, 2015, Judge Shoob issued an amended order in which he narrowed his original order and ruled that wage garnishments are permitted in Gwinnett County. Strickland v. Alexander, No. 1:12-CV-02735 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 5th, 2015).
FordHarrison LLP • October 01, 2015
Executive Summary: Across Georgia, employers are opening their mailboxes to discover that courts have returned checks that employers previously submitted to satisfy garnishment actions. This is the result of decisions by many courts across Georgia to stop accepting garnishment checks in light of a decision issued by Judge Marvin Shoob of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, in which Judge Shoob ruled that Georgia's garnishment law is unconstitutional. Strickland v. Alexander, No. 1:12-CV-02735 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2015).
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • September 21, 2015
On September 8, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an Order declaring Georgia’s post-judgment garnishment statue, O.C.G.A. § 18-4-60 et seq., unconstitutional. Strickland v. Alexander, Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-02735-MHS (N.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2015) (granting plaintiff’s summary judgment motion). The basis for the court’s decision was that the garnishment statute fails to give debtors adequate notice about (1) what types of property may be exempt from garnishment under state and federal law and (2) the procedures for claiming available exemptions. The court also held that the statute violates due process rights because it fails to provide for a “prompt and expeditious” process for resolving exemption claims. As a result of this Order, Gwinnett County courts have been enjoined from issuing any garnishment summons until further notice.
Effective immediately, the Georgia wage payment law has been amended to permit employers in the state to pay employees by payroll card in addition to cash, check and direct deposit. Use of this additional method of wage payment may help many employers to not only reduce payroll administrative costs, but also to provide a convenient and secure, paperless wage payment option to employees who are unbanked - those who either do not have a bank account or whose bank account does not qualify to receive direct deposits.
Fisher Phillips • July 03, 2013
As of July 1, 2013, all private employers in Georgia with more than ten employees should be enrolled in and using E-Verify (the federal employment verification system) for new hires or re-hires. The Georgia E-Verify requirements were enacted in 2011 and phased in over the last two years based on number of full-time (35 or more hours/week) employees counted on January 1 of each year.
FordHarrison LLP • July 02, 2013
Executive Summary: Yet another domino has fallen in the changing landscape of immigration law.
Fisher Phillips • February 09, 2012
As you know, last year the Georgia Supreme Court issued a new rule prohibiting non-lawyers, such as payroll clerks or human resources professionals, from signing garnishment pleadings that are filed in court. Doing so was, in the Court's view, the unlicensed practice of law. Our Legal Alert on that development was issued in September.
Ogletree Deakins • February 09, 2012
On February 8, 2012, Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 683 into law. HB 683 effectively overturns the Georgia Supreme Courtâ€™s recent decision requiring employers to use a Georgia-licensed attorney to file answers to garnishments in Georgia courts of record. Under the new law, which becomes effective immediately, employers may use a Georgia-licensed attorney, their own in-house staff (including human resources, payroll, and other non-attorney staff), or other third-party vendors to handle responses to summonses of garnishment in Georgia.
Ogletree Deakins • February 08, 2012
The Georgia business community may have successfully rallied against the September 12, 2011 Georgia Supreme Court decision requiring any answer of garnishment filed in a Georgia court of record to be signed by a Georgia-licensed attorney. The Georgia House of Representatives has approved a bill that would reverse the Georgia Supreme Courtâ€™s decision and allow employers to execute and file garnishment answers without the involvement of an attorney. Last week, and without discussion, the Georgia Senate unanimously passed the bill, and now the bill will be sent to Governor Nathan Deal for his final approval. The new law would be effective upon the Governorâ€™s signature.
Nexsen Pruet • November 15, 2011
On May 13, 2011, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed into law House Bill #87, a comprehensive immigration law mandating employer verification compliance and establishing criminal penalties for various acts. Some have touted the law as one of the toughest immigration laws in the nation and claim the Georgia law is similar to many provisions in Arizonaâ€™s S.B. 1070 currently under legal challenge in the State of Arizona. On June 2, 2011, several civil rights and labor groups filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia challenging several provisions of the AZ-style legislation on constitutional grounds. This article will focus on the main employment verification provisions of the new law as well as various criminal provisions that could impact employers and/or their employees.
Ogletree Deakins • September 28, 2011
In a two-sentence decision issued on September 12, 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court approved an advisory opinion issued by the State Bar of Georgia Standing Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. The advisory opinion interpreted existing Georgia case law as requiring any answer of garnishment filed in a court of record in Georgia to be signed by an attorney licensed to practice in that state. Consequently, as of September 12, all corporations must use a Georgia-licensed attorney to respond to any summons of garnishment issued by a state or superior court in Georgia. Failure to comply with this rule can result in a default (a stricken answer) in the garnishment proceeding and possible criminal sanctions for the unauthorized practice of law.
Fisher Phillips • September 19, 2011
Over the years, Georgia employers have become accustomed to processing and responding to garnishments on their own. While legal counsel might be called upon to handle the more unique issues that inevitably arise in a garnishment proceeding, employers more commonly resort to their human resources or payroll departments to handle routine garnishments.
Ogletree Deakins • April 25, 2011
The Georgia legislature passed an immigration bill late last week which will require most Georgia employers to use the federal E-Verify employment eligibility verification system for all newly-hired employees by July 1, 2013. Although he expects a constitutional challenge to the law, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has indicated that he will sign the bill into law this week.
Fisher Phillips • May 21, 2008
After years of lobbying by gun rights groups in its favor, and by business associations in opposition, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue signed the "Business Security and Employee Privacy Act" on May 14. This Act expands the areas in which holders of firearm licenses may legally carry concealed weapons – and places some limitations on employers’ rights.