Noncompete News: Georgia Court uses Restrictive Covenant Act to Blue Pencil Nonsolicit Agreement
Executive Summary: In one of the first (if not the first) published decision applying Georgia's new Restrictive Covenants Act ("RCA"), the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia "blue penciled" or modified an otherwise overbroad nonsolicitation of customers provision.
Is Your Business Prepared To Comply with the Georgia Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 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 Arizona’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.
Georgia Supreme Court Rules Corporations Must Use an Attorney to Answer Garnishments
Georgia’s garnishment law places unique responsibilities on employers. They must serve and file an answer to the summons of garnishment at 30-day intervals throughout the life of a continuing garnishment, in addition to withholding and remitting a portion of the employee’s disposable earnings. Failure to file and serve these answers at any point can result in a default judgment and the employer becoming liable for the employee’s debt.
Georgia Attorneys Alone May Answer Georgia Garnishments
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 opinion interpreted existing Georgia law as requiring all garnishment answers filed in Georgia courts to be signed by an attorney licensed to practice in the state. Consequently, as of September 12, all corporate employers must use a Georgia-licensed attorney to respond to a summons of garnishment issued by a Georgia state or superior court. Failure to comply with this rule can result in default and potential criminal sanctions for the unauthorized practice of law.
Only Georgia Attorneys May Answer Georgia Garnishments
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.
Attorneys Must Sign Garnishment Answers, Georgia State Bar Says
Garnishments against employees place a greater burden on payroll personnel, but are generally something that most employers have learned to manage. You do the calculations, make the withholding, and then send the money and the garnishment answer to the court. Yet companies with Georgia employees now have an additional hurdle when responding to garnishment actions – working with attorneys.
Peach State Pitfalls: Georgia Employers Must Now Use an Attorney to File Garnishment Answers
The Georgia Supreme Court recently changed the law by requiring employers to file answers in garnishment matters through an attorney. Though Georgia corporations are required to be represented by an attorney in courts other than magistrate courts, this rule has not typically been followed in answering summons of wage garnishments. Georgia employers often respond to these routine filings through payroll or human resources personnel without reliance on legal counsel. The supreme court's decision means that employers continuing this practice risk having their answers rejected by the court or challenged by plaintiffs. Equally important, employers who now file in state or superior courts without attorneys will be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The ruling is effective immediately.
Georgia Employers Must Use Attorney to Answer Garnishment Summons
Executive Summary: On September 12, 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court adopted an informal State Bar of Georgia opinion stating that any non-lawyer who answers a garnishment in Georgia is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Accordingly, as of September 12, all companies responding to a summons of garnishment in the state of Georgia must file their answer through a licensed Georgia attorney.
Georgia Supreme Court Rules Non-Lawyers May Not Answer Garnishments
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.
Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction to Block Parts of Georgia Immigration Law
Determining parts of Georgia’s new immigration law (HB 87) were preempted by federal law, Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., issued a preliminary injunction against sections of the state law that allow police to question individuals about their immigration status and mandate sanctions for those who harbor or transport undocumented migrants. Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, et al. v. Deal, et al., No. 1:11-CV-1804-TWT (N.D. Ga. June 27, 2011). These sections were to take effect on July 1, 2011. The rest of the law’s provisions remain intact. Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has vowed to appeal the ruling.
