Also known as Wage garnishment, an attachment of earnings is an order issued by a court of law that directs an employer to withhold the earnings of an employee who has defaulted in his/her debt payment at least by one installment or did not fulfill the obligation that has been put on him/her in regard to child support, federal, state and local levies, non payments of loans obtained for educational purposes etc. However, the provisions of Title III of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) also prohibits the employer from discharging such an employee irrespective of the number of levies made or proceedings brought on him/her to collect such debts; this is however subject to the limitation that another order has not been served on such an employee for a different debt.
Provisions of Title III
Provisions of Title III applies to all the debtors who receive personal earnings; the personal earnings being defined as wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses and a pension income but excludes gratuitous payments as tips. The garnishment orders put the onus of burden on the employers in regard to the compliance and they also make them imperative to be aware of ever changing federal and state laws in regard to compliance of them.
Law and Appeal
In regard to the remedies available to an affected employee, he or she can file an appeal before a court of law objecting to the order and subject to such employee able to show an inability of the quantum of amount demanded , the court is empowered to order an amount that could be lesser as it deems fit. To cite a case law in this regard, in an appeal filed by one Howard (Ted) Furkin and David Lanzotti against the United States of America in the district court for the Central District of Illinois, (Springfield Division), the Court had reduced the monthly payments from $579 to $425 a month.
However, the prudent thing for such an affected employee is to look at the possibility of negotiating a settlement under a Debt Negotiation Program for that may enable him or her to settle the debts at favorable terms and conditions and the actual settlement in a number of cases has been found to be significantly lesser than what had been originally owned by such an employees.
