This article was published in the February 7, 2012 issue of the
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 Court'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 Governor's signature.
If the bill is signed into law, employers will no longer be
required to hire a Georgia-licensed attorney to execute their
Georgia garnishment answers and will be allowed to use their own
human resources, payroll, or other non-attorney staff to process
their Georgia garnishments. We will keep you informed as to the
status of this bill.
Please be aware, however, that even if the Georgia Supreme
Court's decision is overturned, Georgia employers may still be
required to use a Georgia-licensed attorney for any traverse or
claim that is filed in a Georgia court of record in response to the
garnishment answer. Also note that neither the Georgia Supreme
Court's September 12 decision nor this bill impacts the ability
of companies to represent themselves in garnishment proceedings in
Georgia magistrate courts because, as courts of inquiry, an
attorney is not required in those proceedings.
Although the bill has been passed by the Georgia House and Senate,
the bill may not be signed by the Governor right away, if at all.
Until the bill becomes law, please continue working with the
Georgia-licensed attorney who has been handling your Georgia
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Last week, a plaintiff sued the creator and the operator of the Esteem criminal background database—LexisNexis and First Advantage—alleging that they gave prohibited information to potential employers, which ultimately barred him from getting a job. Tsang v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., No. CV-14-0493 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014).
It is rare these days for a California appellate court to weigh in on whether an
employer is vicariously liable for accidents involving an employee that occur
during the employee’s commute to and from work.
Given the myriad government regulations applicable to credit unions and the need for strict financial controls, a credit union might perceive that an employee handbook is low on its list of priorities.
Most plan administrators know that the recipe for a group health plan’s COBRA obligation includes three ingredients – a qualifying event that occurs while the individual is covered by the plan that triggers a loss of such coverage.
We were happy yesterday to refer readers to a great treatise by our friend, Ellen Pinkos Cobb, Esq., entitled "Bullying, Violence, Harassment, Discrimination and Stress" which she updated for 2014. As a number of clamoring readers reminded us, we forgot to tell you where to get it.