(Thanks to co-author and wage garnishment expert Kevin Pitre for his assistance with this blog entry.)

There are so many competing interests in this complex society of ours, it’s amazing anything gets accomplished in an orderly fashion. 

Take, for instance, the collection of a debt, like a court judgment, taxes, or child support order.  The creditor has an interest in getting paid what is owed … as soon as possible.  And if the debtor is employed, why not have that income stream diverted to the creditor until the debt is paid?  Seems reasonable.

On the other hand, the debtor might have an interest in delaying repayment of that debt – or avoiding it altogether – particularly if there are other things he might prefer to spend his money on…like food.  Plus, good luck convincing the debtor to continue working at a job if the entire salary is diverted to the creditor.  Not exactly slavery, buuut….

And what about the debtor’s family?  While the creditor is clamoring for his money, the debtor’s kids might like some shoes or school books, or a roof.  And society?  Aren’t we all better off if a debtor (and his family) are not left penniless and reliant on the public welfare to survive just because he got into a bit of trouble with a creditor?

Conflict seems inevitable.

Thankfully, we are a society of laws, those imprecise, mind-numbing rules created by ourselves in a valiant and laudable effort to find that delicate balance between conflicting interests that naturally arise in any complex social community.  Rules that seek to satisfy as many interests as possible as fairly as possible – all while avoiding the broken kneecaps of a self-help system.

Welcome to the world of wage garnishments – a mildly bureaucratic process, heavy on paperwork and minutiae, designed expressly to provide a little satisfaction for creditors, a little protection for debtors and their families, and a lot of headaches for employers.  (Well, the latter may not be part of the design, but it is a symptom nonetheless.)

Read More

A significant number, if not the majority, of employees in the United States use company owned computers to access the Internet for personal purposes.  With the recent controversy surrounding the misuse of Pentagon computers used to access, and in some cases purchase, child pornography, there is a renewed interest in how employers should regulate workplace Internet Access and their potential liability for failure to prevent their more egregious misuse.

1. The Need for Clear Internet Use Policies

It is essential for employers to have clearly spelled out, and clearly communicated, policies regarding Internet Use and the right of the employer to monitor such use.  Prohibited uses need to be specifically articulated, including those that may appear obvious to management.  No matter who the employer, the policy needs to provide notice of the employer's right to monitor and audit an employee's use of the Internet and make clear that there is no expectation of privacy in an employee’s use of the Internet when doing so through a company owned computer issued for business purposes.

Read More

Part 5 (The Final Entry):  The California Courts In Action

This is where the action has been in 2009 employment law -- in the appellate courts.  From commuting to class actions, tip pools to trade secrets, California’s courts were busy.  In this, our final installment of the year in review, we look at just a few employment decisions we found particularly interesting.

On The Subject Of Commuting…: 

A few commuting technicalities were cleared up for employees and employers in 2009, including a clarification of exactly what constitutes the commute.  (And all this time I thought it was all that sitting in traffic I do twice a day, along with tens of thousands of my closest smog-spewing friends.)

Read More

Pausing on our trip down memory lane, we take a quick peek around the corner at what the California Supreme Court will be soon be waxing so eloquently about.  Here are this reporter’s favorites:

Shorten Those Pesky Statutes Of Limitations?:  Why can’t employers simply impose an Armendariz-compliant arbitration requirement on their employees as a condition of employment, and (while they are at it) include a provision whereby the parties “agree” that the statute of limitations will be shortened to something less than that permitted by FEHA?  Seems reasonable (if you are an employer), doesn’t it?  The Supreme Court will help us with this when it rules in Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court (No. S167169.)  The matter is fully briefed.  (Check here for latest court update or to request automatic email notifications about the case.)

Read More

As promised, we continue our trip down memory lane by looking at some of the more significant California Supreme Court employment decisions in 2009.  Don’t bother putting on your shoes, it’s a really short trip.  In fact, in this reporter’s humble opinion, the 2010 journey will be much more interesting as there are a number of novel issues fully briefed just waiting for that splash of Supreme Court brilliance.  For now, we look at employer spying, supervisor harassment, punitive damages, and the infamous 17200 unfair competition law.

Read More

Wrongful termination, sexual harassment, discrimination and virtually every other employment-related claim begins with a turf war, a fight over which court will hear the case.  Employee plaintiffs prefer California state courts due to the generous scheduling and unfussy adherence to the rules.  Out-of-state employer defendants want to remove to federal court on diversity grounds and pressure plaintiffs with tight deadlines and judges bent on strict compliance. 

Read More