Articles Discussing Human Resource Topics In Georgia.

Georgia’s garnishment statute is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Atlanta has held in Strickland v. Alexander, No. 1:12-CV-02735-MHS (N.D. Ga. Sept. 8, 2015), putting the future of state garnishment cases in doubt.

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.

Georgia employers now may pay employees through the use of payroll card accounts under a law signed by Governor Nathan Deal on May 5, 2015. The new law is effective immediately.

Georgia has become the 24th state to enact a medical marijuana law.

On April 16, 2015, Governor Nathan Deal signed legislation immediately legalizing the use of a low-potency form of cannabis oil for medicinal uses. However, unlike many other medical marijuana laws enacted recently, the Georgia law contains no language protecting medical marijuana users from employment discrimination. Indeed, the law provides considerable protections for employers from employees reporting to work or remaining on duty after consuming the drug. It states: “Nothing in this article shall require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing of marijuana in any form, or to affect the ability of an employer to have a written zero tolerance policy prohibiting the on-duty, and off-duty, use of marijuana, or prohibiting any employee from having a detectable amount of marijuana in such employee’s system while at work.”

With the enactment of “Haleigh’s Hope Act” on Thursday, April 16, 2015, Georgia became the 26th jurisdiction to decriminalize medical marijuana use. The Act, which became effectively immediately upon signature by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, legalizes such use under Georgia law in connection with nine specified medical conditions, including end-stage cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), seizure disorders, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, mitochondrial disease, Parkinson’s, and sickle cell disease.

Under the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014, government buildings, schools, churches, and bars are no long excluded from the list of places where licensed persons may legally carry firearms. Signed on April 23, 2014, by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, the new law, House Bill 60 (also known as the “Guns Everywhere Bill”), goes into effect July 1, 2014.

A new law in Georgia protects employers from negligent hiring and retention claims by creating a presumption of “due care” for hiring and employing individuals with criminal backgrounds who have received a “Program and Treatment Completion Certificate” from the Department of Corrections or a grant of pardon from the State Board of Pardons and Parole. Governor Nathan Deal signed Senate Bill 365 on April 13, 2014. The law is due to take effect on July 1, 2014; however, no timeline has been released for the Department of Corrections to implement the new certificate program.

Executive Summary: Yet another domino has fallen in the changing landscape of immigration law.

A federal appeals court in Atlanta has struck down portions of Georgia’s controversial “Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act” (H.B. 87) prohibiting the transportation, concealing, or harboring of illegal aliens. Relying heavily on the recent, highly publicized Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States, the Circuit Court found that Section 7 of the measure is preempted by federal law. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit also upheld another provision of the statute, Section 8, authorizing law enforcement officers to investigate a criminal suspect’s immigration status in certain circumstances. See Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, et al. v. Georgia, Case 11-13044 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2012).

Effective immediately, businesses in Georgia can save themselves the expense of using legal counsel to file routine garnishment answers. The new law, signed by Governor Nathan Deal on February 7, 2012, allows businesses to appoint an “authorized officer or employee” to file such answers and declares that such filing “shall not constitute the practice of law.” This reverses the Georgia Supreme Court’s 2011 decision that held that filing garnishment answers by a non-attorney is the unlicensed practice of law.

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.

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.

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.

The Georgia state legislature passed immigrant legislation (HB87) on April 14, the final day of its 2011 session. Governor Nathan Deal is expected to sign the sweeping immigration bill into law as early as today. HB87 mandates that companies with more than 10 full-time employees register with the federal E-Verify program to check the legal status of new hires and creates the offense of “aggravated identity theft” for the use of false information. In addition, it allows the police to question individuals about their immigration status and mandates sanctions for those who harbor or transport undocumented migrants.