waiver for meeting in person

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

HIS ex was the one who asked for 5% increase. After his EX filed a petition for an increase, the court reviewed his latest paycheck and they approved what his ex demanded.

Look. There is one reason for this, and one reason only. This guy is FAR behind in child support and his ex is rightly monitoring the situation and he is topped out at the 50% withholding maximum. Whenever she suspects he gets a raise or knows he gets a raise, she runs back to the court for an increase. The 5% increase is probably not worth the effort, so she is serving notice on the deadbeat..."I got you now and I am not letting go"

Now, let me inform you of another fact of United States life. Employers HATE to keep getting these petty notices of liens on paychecks. His ex could be hoist on her own petard if she is not careful because his employer could just well get tired of having to make all the payroll changes and deductions and un-@ss this guy from their payroll. Times are tough, lots of people without child support problems need work...know what I mean? Also, and I can say this as an executive officer of an employer, LOTS of employers look at deadbeat dads askance. "hmmm, he doesn't support his kids? Will he do his job for me?" In this economy one does not need these questions being asked. Employers everywhere are looking to cut "costs".

Now this should tell you something that his ex is pursuing the guy for every nickle, literally, she can get. There are some huge red flags waving here. Pay heed.

Gary -

Discharging an employee for having a wage garnishment is against the law. The ex-wife can take this guy back to court over and over again and it will not affect him.

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/garnis...sicPro#BasicPro

Title III, Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA)

(15 USC §1671 et seq.(PDF); 29 CFR Part 870)

Who is Covered

Title III of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) protects employees from discharge by their employers because their wages have been garnished for any one debt, and it limits the amount of an employee's earnings that may be garnished in any one week. Title III applies to all employers and individuals who receive earnings for personal services (including wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, and income from a pension or retirement program, but ordinarily not including tips).

Basic Provisions/Requirements

Wage garnishment occurs when an employer withholds the earnings of an individual for the payment of a debt as the result of a court order or other equitable procedure. Title III prohibits an employer from discharging an employee because his or her earnings have been subject to garnishment for any one debt, regardless of the number of levies made or proceedings brought to collect it. Title III does not, however, protect an employee from discharge if the employee's earnings have been subject to garnishment for a second or subsequent debt.

Title III also protects employees by limiting the amount of earnings that may be garnished in any workweek or pay period to the lesser of 25 percent of disposable earnings or the amount by which disposable earnings are greater than 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This limit applies regardless of how many garnishment orders an employer receives. The federal minimum wage is $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.

In court orders for child support or alimony, Title III allows up to 50 percent of an employee's disposable earnings to be garnished if the employee is supporting a current spouse or child, and up to 60 percent if the employee is not doing so. An additional five percent may be garnished for support payments over 12 weeks in arrears. The restrictions noted in the preceding paragraph do not apply to such garnishments.

"Disposable earnings" is the amount of earnings left after legally required deductions (e.g., federal, state and local taxes, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and state employee retirement systems) have been made. Deductions not required by law (e.g., union dues, health and life insurance, and charitable contributions) are not subtracted from gross earnings when the amount of disposable earnings for garnishment purposes is calculated.

Title III specifies that garnishment restrictions do not apply to bankruptcy court orders and debts due for federal and state taxes. Nor do they affect voluntary wage assignments, i.e., situations where workers voluntarily agree that their employers may turn over a specified amount of their earnings to a creditor or creditors.

Rebbecajo:

I have three words for all this...Employment at Will. In msot states an employer can say goodbye for no reason at all

[pushbrk 12,609]

HIS ex was the one who asked for 5% increase. After his EX filed a petition for an increase, the court reviewed his latest paycheck and they approved what his ex demanded.

Look. There is one reason for this, and one reason only. This guy is FAR behind in child support and his ex is rightly monitoring the situation and he is topped out at the 50% withholding maximum. Whenever she suspects he gets a raise or knows he gets a raise, she runs back to the court for an increase. The 5% increase is probably not worth the effort, so she is serving notice on the deadbeat..."I got you now and I am not letting go"

Now, let me inform you of another fact of United States life. Employers HATE to keep getting these petty notices of liens on paychecks. His ex could be hoist on her own petard if she is not careful because his employer could just well get tired of having to make all the payroll changes and deductions and un-@ss this guy from their payroll. Times are tough, lots of people without child support problems need work...know what I mean? Also, and I can say this as an executive officer of an employer, LOTS of employers look at deadbeat dads askance. "hmmm, he doesn't support his kids? Will he do his job for me?" In this economy one does not need these questions being asked. Employers everywhere are looking to cut "costs".

Now this should tell you something that his ex is pursuing the guy for every nickle, literally, she can get. There are some huge red flags waving here. Pay heed.

Gary -

Discharging an employee for having a wage garnishment is against the law. The ex-wife can take this guy back to court over and over again and it will not affect him.

Statement one is true but statement two is only theoretically true. An employer may open themselves to a lawsuit if an employee wants to claim they were let go because of a wage garnishment but only employers stupid enough not to cover their butts will end up paying any consequence. Many jobs in many states are simply "at will" and no reason need be given for termination.

As somebody who has been fired and has fired people can tell you, the stated reason isn't always the reason. But we digress to OT.

Edited March 18, 2009 by pushbrk

[rebeccajo 14]

Rebbecajo:

I have three words for all this...Employment at Will. In msot states an employer can say goodbye for no reason at all

Gary -

Legal fees spent defending a cavalier decision can mount up, you know. At-will employment or not.

[rebeccajo 14]

Statement one is true but statement two is only theoretically true. An employer may open themselves to a lawsuit if an employee wants to claim they were let go because of a wage garnishment but only employers stupid enough not to cover their butts will end up paying any consequence. Many jobs in many states are simply "at will" and no reason need be given for termination.

As somebody who has been fired and has fired people can tell you, the stated reason isn't always the reason. But we digress to OT.

Pay stubs reflecting a garnishment might be fairly influential with a jury, would you say not?

An employer can state any reason they like. An employee with compelling evidence can prevail over that reason.

[rebeccajo 14]

Before this blows up into a 'who is right and who is wrong' - which ain't gonna happen on my part because I've GTG - I'd like to say I only offered up my opinion because I believe the OP has enough information to digest without worrying about whether or not her boyfriend could get fired for the garnishments.

[pushbrk 12,609]

Statement one is true but statement two is only theoretically true. An employer may open themselves to a lawsuit if an employee wants to claim they were let go because of a wage garnishment but only employers stupid enough not to cover their butts will end up paying any consequence. Many jobs in many states are simply "at will" and no reason need be given for termination.

As somebody who has been fired and has fired people can tell you, the stated reason isn't always the reason. But we digress to OT.

Pay stubs reflecting a garnishment might be fairly influential with a jury, would you say not?

An employer can state any reason they like. An employee with compelling evidence can prevail over that reason.

Pay stubs reflecting a garnishment would be evidence of a garnishment, not evidence that's the reason they were fired any more than having red hair would be evidence you were fired for having red hair. Nobody suggested firing somebody the day the garnishment arrived.

All that said, I agree the OP doesn't need this information as it's probably irrelevant anyway. However, it should be noted that a child support garnishment is not an indication of anything other than an obligation to pay child support. In most states, one need not be in arrears to be garnished for child support. In some states, neither party even has a choice in the matter.

[DEDixon 39]

I'm beginning to smell a rat! She joins yesterday, gets the low-down on this dude who she has never met and is still without a doubt deeply in love with him and not even a little bit discouraged by what she has been told.

She just continues to agree with everyone and continues to say she is looking for a way to overcome when obviously there is little chance given all the details that she will ever overcome any of this any time soon. She doesn't seem emotionally upset at all. Her responses are too matter-of-fact.

This is another poster who is simply giving all of us something to do..

You're very wrong. You dont know how i feel now. I respected all your comments and advice here even some hurts me inside. I only shared a little of our situation here so pls dont just judge me based on what you think. im trying to take one step a time and know how to deal and tlak about this with my boyfriend as i am reading all your responses. Do you want me to just give up on our situation here and get mad to my boyfriend? Is that the reaction you want to see from me?

Im not mad here. Im just a little disappointed of how you think of me but thanks anyway.

I'm not mad either. I just choose not to believe your story.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Rebbecajo:

I have three words for all this...Employment at Will. In msot states an employer can say goodbye for no reason at all

Gary -

Legal fees spent defending a cavalier decision can mount up, you know. At-will employment or not.

Sorry Rebeccajo. I've been at this too long. "Thank you for your work, your services are no longer necessary"

Sue me? Never have been, never will be. I mean I hate to burst anyone's bubble, you can have all the laws you want. They give reasons yuo "cannot" fire someone for, not reasons you can. There is NO law which gives reasons you CAN fore someone...duh. Best is to give no reason at all (as above)

And what do you give for odds that a deadbeat dad is a good employee? I promise you, I know many employers who have a strict policy...you get wage garnishments for child support and you are GONE BABY GONE! And none of them are stupid enough to say so.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Before this blows up into a 'who is right and who is wrong' - which ain't gonna happen on my part because I've GTG - I'd like to say I only offered up my opinion because I believe the OP has enough information to digest without worrying about whether or not her boyfriend could get fired for the garnishments.

There is nothing right or wrong about it. YOU are right that it against the law to fire someone for garnishments. Congratulations. Every day it happens, not for that reason, but for another, or none at all.

I mean if I fire someone because they are no longer needed in my private "for profit" business exactly WHAT compelling evidence does anyone have?

Attorney: Gary, did you fire rebeccajo because she had her wages garnished for child support?

Me: O heavens no.

Attorney" Why did you fire Recbbecajo?

Me: Because her services were no longer needed, I could do her job myself and pocket the money I was paying her.

Attorney: But you are aware her wages were garnished? Here are the check stubs.

Me: Yes.

Attorney: And you fired her two weeks after she had her wages garnished?

Me: Yes.

Attorney: Doesn't that seem odd to you?

Me: No

Attorney: So what was the REAL reason?

me: I told you, I wanted the money I paid her for myself. Besides, she disagrees with me about tapeworm immigration attorneys, told me herself. I can't employ someone like that! But really it was for the money.

I mean, where do you go with this? It IS a right to work state and we are NOT going to have a break down in the courtroom Perry Mason moment. Labor attorneys know it well also, it is what they advise their corporate clients. There are attorneys on both sides of that law and despite my stated feelings for parasitic immigration attorneys, I do use the services of real attorneys in my business. For every law passed to protect deadbeats and for every attorney making a living representing deadbeats, there is an attorney representing business owners to work around the ...oops...sorry, helping us to COMPLY with the law.

So, to address the topic of the thread and for the benefit of the OP, for which we are all here, my advice is consider her future with this person very carefully as he is quite possibly likely to lose his job.

[rebeccajo 14]

Before this blows up into a 'who is right and who is wrong' - which ain't gonna happen on my part because I've GTG - I'd like to say I only offered up my opinion because I believe the OP has enough information to digest without worrying about whether or not her boyfriend could get fired for the garnishments.

There is nothing right or wrong about it. YOU are right that it against the law to fire someone for garnishments. Congratulations. Every day it happens, not for that reason, but for another, or none at all.

I mean if I fire someone because they are no longer needed in my private "for profit" business exactly WHAT compelling evidence does anyone have?

Attorney: Gary, did you fire rebeccajo because she had her wages garnished for child support?

Me: O heavens no.

Attorney" Why did you fire Recbbecajo?

Me: Because her services were no longer needed, I could do her job myself and pocket the money I was paying her.

Attorney: But you are aware her wages were garnished? Here are the check stubs.

Me: Yes.

Attorney: And you fired her two weeks after she had her wages garnished?

Me: Yes.

Attorney: Doesn't that seem odd to you?

Me: No

Attorney: So what was the REAL reason?

me: I told you, I wanted the money I paid her for myself. Besides, she disagrees with me about tapeworm immigration attorneys, told me herself. I can't employ someone like that! But really it was for the money.

I mean, where do you go with this? It IS a right to work state and we are NOT going to have a break down in the courtroom Perry Mason moment. Labor attorneys know it well also, it is what they advise their corporate clients. There are attorneys on both sides of that law and despite my stated feelings for parasitic immigration attorneys, I do use the services of real attorneys in my business. For every law passed to protect deadbeats and for every attorney making a living representing deadbeats, there is an attorney representing business owners to work around the ...oops...sorry, helping us to COMPLY with the law.

So, to address the topic of the thread and for the benefit of the OP, for which we are all here, my advice is consider her future with this person very carefully as he is quite possibly likely to lose his job.

Gary -

I love how someone can show you the law and then you sit and pontificate about how that law can be 'gotten around'.

I daresay that not everybody who is behind on their child support is a 'deadbeat'. Many are. But bad things happen to good people. Hence one reason the law is in place.

Secondly, garnishment of wages is a gnat's eyelash in the world of payroll processing these days. It's not the 'hardship' on the employer that it used to be - at least not since the advent of payroll software. One entry and then boom - the money is withheld without any other bother each pay period. Electronic transfer of the funds to the recipient makes it even less painful.

Thirdly, "Perry Mason breakdowns" aren't even necessary. Most of these suits never go to trial. But many do go so far as discovery, interrogatories and depositions. All expensive even if they aren't paid for out of the employer's pocket but rather by his insurance carrier, who raises his premium the longer the litigation languishes before it is settled out of court.

Lastly - I've run a business too PLUS I worked in a law office for ages. So I've been on both sides of the fence. I've seen employees emerge victorious against their employers for unlawful discharge. It does happen, despite your opinion of what 'at will employment' means.

[lucyrich 20]

Just to reinforce what's been said here, coming from a slightly different direction, you should read the administrative decisions regarding fiancee visas.

Go to the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov. Click on "laws and regulations", then click "administrative decisions" to the left, and click "administrative decisions" at the bottom. Then scroll down to folder "D6 - Fiancees and fiances of US Citizens (K-1)". You can choose a year, say 2008. Then look at the pdf files that come up.

These are records of lots of people who have been denied, and then appealed their denials.

If you read through a few dozen of them, you'll notice some patterns.

By far the most common reason K-1 petitions end up here is for failure to prove the "met in person in the two years prior to filing" requirement.

They don't waive this requirement often. Lots of people think they deserve a waiver, but almost nobody gets one.

They don't waive the requirement for financial reasons, ever.

They don't waive the requirement just because the USC can't travel. The couple has to prove they can't meet ANYWHERE, not in the US, the beneficiary's country, or any third country.

Anyone considering a K-1 filing might find it interesting to read through a bunch of these in order to avoid having their own petition end up on that site.

[rebeccajo 14]

Just to reinforce what's been said here, coming from a slightly different direction, you should read the administrative decisions regarding fiancee visas.

Go to the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov. Click on "laws and regulations", then click "administrative decisions" to the left, and click "administrative decisions" at the bottom. Then scroll down to folder "D6 - Fiancees and fiances of US Citizens (K-1)". You can choose a year, say 2008. Then look at the pdf files that come up.

These are records of lots of people who have been denied, and then appealed their denials.

If you read through a few dozen of them, you'll notice some patterns.

By far the most common reason K-1 petitions end up here is for failure to prove the "met in person in the two years prior to filing" requirement.

They don't waive this requirement often. Lots of people think they deserve a waiver, but almost nobody gets one.

They don't waive the requirement for financial reasons, ever.

They don't waive the requirement just because the USC can't travel. The couple has to prove they can't meet ANYWHERE, not in the US, the beneficiary's country, or any third country.

Anyone considering a K-1 filing might find it interesting to read through a bunch of these in order to avoid having their own petition end up on that site.

Thanks for getting us back on topic!

[littlebabygirl 0]

I'm beginning to smell a rat! She joins yesterday, gets the low-down on this dude who she has never met and is still without a doubt deeply in love with him and not even a little bit discouraged by what she has been told.

She just continues to agree with everyone and continues to say she is looking for a way to overcome when obviously there is little chance given all the details that she will ever overcome any of this any time soon. She doesn't seem emotionally upset at all. Her responses are too matter-of-fact.

This is another poster who is simply giving all of us something to do..

You're very wrong. You dont know how i feel now. I respected all your comments and advice here even some hurts me inside. I only shared a little of our situation here so pls dont just judge me based on what you think. im trying to take one step a time and know how to deal and tlak about this with my boyfriend as i am reading all your responses. Do you want me to just give up on our situation here and get mad to my boyfriend? Is that the reaction you want to see from me?

Im not mad here. Im just a little disappointed of how you think of me but thanks anyway.

I'm not mad either. I just choose not to believe your story.

it's ok.

Just to reinforce what's been said here, coming from a slightly different direction, you should read the administrative decisions regarding fiancee visas.

Go to the USCIS website at http://www.uscis.gov. Click on "laws and regulations", then click "administrative decisions" to the left, and click "administrative decisions" at the bottom. Then scroll down to folder "D6 - Fiancees and fiances of US Citizens (K-1)". You can choose a year, say 2008. Then look at the pdf files that come up.

These are records of lots of people who have been denied, and then appealed their denials.

If you read through a few dozen of them, you'll notice some patterns.

By far the most common reason K-1 petitions end up here is for failure to prove the "met in person in the two years prior to filing" requirement.

They don't waive this requirement often. Lots of people think they deserve a waiver, but almost nobody gets one.

They don't waive the requirement for financial reasons, ever.

They don't waive the requirement just because the USC can't travel. The couple has to prove they can't meet ANYWHERE, not in the US, the beneficiary's country, or any third country.

Anyone considering a K-1 filing might find it interesting to read through a bunch of these in order to avoid having their own petition end up on that site.

Thanks for getting us back on topic!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Before this blows up into a 'who is right and who is wrong' - which ain't gonna happen on my part because I've GTG - I'd like to say I only offered up my opinion because I believe the OP has enough information to digest without worrying about whether or not her boyfriend could get fired for the garnishments.

There is nothing right or wrong about it. YOU are right that it against the law to fire someone for garnishments. Congratulations. Every day it happens, not for that reason, but for another, or none at all.

I mean if I fire someone because they are no longer needed in my private "for profit" business exactly WHAT compelling evidence does anyone have?

Attorney: Gary, did you fire rebeccajo because she had her wages garnished for child support?

Me: O heavens no.

Attorney" Why did you fire Recbbecajo?

Me: Because her services were no longer needed, I could do her job myself and pocket the money I was paying her.

Attorney: But you are aware her wages were garnished? Here are the check stubs.

Me: Yes.

Attorney: And you fired her two weeks after she had her wages garnished?

Me: Yes.

Attorney: Doesn't that seem odd to you?

Me: No

Attorney: So what was the REAL reason?

me: I told you, I wanted the money I paid her for myself. Besides, she disagrees with me about tapeworm immigration attorneys, told me herself. I can't employ someone like that! But really it was for the money.

I mean, where do you go with this? It IS a right to work state and we are NOT going to have a break down in the courtroom Perry Mason moment. Labor attorneys know it well also, it is what they advise their corporate clients. There are attorneys on both sides of that law and despite my stated feelings for parasitic immigration attorneys, I do use the services of real attorneys in my business. For every law passed to protect deadbeats and for every attorney making a living representing deadbeats, there is an attorney representing business owners to work around the ...oops...sorry, helping us to COMPLY with the law.

So, to address the topic of the thread and for the benefit of the OP, for which we are all here, my advice is consider her future with this person very carefully as he is quite possibly likely to lose his job.

Gary -

I love how someone can show you the law and then you sit and pontificate about how that law can be 'gotten around'.

I daresay that not everybody who is behind on their child support is a 'deadbeat'. Many are. But bad things happen to good people. Hence one reason the law is in place.

Secondly, garnishment of wages is a gnat's eyelash in the world of payroll processing these days. It's not the 'hardship' on the employer that it used to be - at least not since the advent of payroll software. One entry and then boom - the money is withheld without any other bother each pay period. Electronic transfer of the funds to the recipient makes it even less painful.

Thirdly, "Perry Mason breakdowns" aren't even necessary. Most of these suits never go to trial. But many do go so far as discovery, interrogatories and depositions. All expensive even if they aren't paid for out of the employer's pocket but rather by his insurance carrier, who raises his premium the longer the litigation languishes before it is settled out of court.

Lastly - I've run a business too PLUS I worked in a law office for ages. So I've been on both sides of the fence. I've seen employees emerge victorious against their employers for unlawful discharge. It does happen, despite your opinion of what 'at will employment' means.

1. I do not go around laws. I comply with them. I would never fire someone for wage garnishment. I promise.

2. Some good people get fired, I guess that is one of those bad things.

3. Don't care. Some things in payroll processing you HAVE to do. Others, well, you don't have to do. The one's we don't do saves money for me.

4. None that I have been party to.

5. I dare say, none were ever my employees. Or, more correctly, my former employees.

6. I do not consider working in a law office a "PLUS", but that's just me.

[rmncm 0]

Off topic whos going to win the cup this year ehh!!! Employers are allowed to charge a resonable fee to proccess child support payments so there isn't any valid reason anyone would get fired for that. Lets stay on topic shall we.

OP as many has said and as pshbrk has stated (listen to him he is a good resource) you should really have a heart to heart with your bf. God I love my wife and would of never brought her here and put this burdon on her but instead I ended up paying a attny almost $5000 to get my child support straitened out, as I stated, my ex was trying to screw me over like your bf's ex. If he really loves you he wouldn't be trying to get you here untill he had his life straited out. Good luck.