-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
salary withheld
- Thread Starter cobo76
- Start date
- Status
cbg
Super Moderator
I'm wondering if it was a company car....
Betty3
Well-Known Member
I'm thinking maybe co. vehicle.
wage deductions Washington DC -
Under the District of Columbia law, an employer may deduct from an employee's wages only charges required by law, permitted by law, or authorized by the employee in accordance with state law. In addition to the District of Columbia rules, employers must comply with the federal rules related to deductions from pay.
Deductions required by law include federal, state, and local income tax withholding; Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax withholding; and court-ordered garnishments or other deductions. There is additional information on garnishment.
Permitted By Law
Employers may, with the employee's written authorization, make deductions from an employee's pay for union dues (DC Code Sec. 1-617.07).
Required Statement
At the time of payment, employers must give each employee an itemized statement showing the date of the payment, gross wages, net wages, deductions from and additions to wages, and hours worked (DC Code Sec. 32-1008; DC Wage-Hour Rules Ch. 9 Sec. 911.2).
An employer may not deduct from an employee's wages or compensation for uniforms and protective clothing required by the employer or tools required to do the job (DC Code Sec. 32-1006; DC Wage-Hour Rules Ch. 9 Sec. 908, DC Wage-Hour Rules Ch. 9 Sec. 910).
In addition, employers may not charge employees for the cost of the following if the charges reduce wages below the minimum wage (DC Wage-Hour Rules Ch. 9 Sec. 915):
• Breakage
• Walkouts
• Mistakes on customer checks
• Fines, assessments, or charges
wage deductions Washington DC -
Under the District of Columbia law, an employer may deduct from an employee's wages only charges required by law, permitted by law, or authorized by the employee in accordance with state law. In addition to the District of Columbia rules, employers must comply with the federal rules related to deductions from pay.
Deductions required by law include federal, state, and local income tax withholding; Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax withholding; and court-ordered garnishments or other deductions. There is additional information on garnishment.
Permitted By Law
Employers may, with the employee's written authorization, make deductions from an employee's pay for union dues (DC Code Sec. 1-617.07).
Required Statement
At the time of payment, employers must give each employee an itemized statement showing the date of the payment, gross wages, net wages, deductions from and additions to wages, and hours worked (DC Code Sec. 32-1008; DC Wage-Hour Rules Ch. 9 Sec. 911.2).
An employer may not deduct from an employee's wages or compensation for uniforms and protective clothing required by the employer or tools required to do the job (DC Code Sec. 32-1006; DC Wage-Hour Rules Ch. 9 Sec. 908, DC Wage-Hour Rules Ch. 9 Sec. 910).
In addition, employers may not charge employees for the cost of the following if the charges reduce wages below the minimum wage (DC Wage-Hour Rules Ch. 9 Sec. 915):
• Breakage
• Walkouts
• Mistakes on customer checks
• Fines, assessments, or charges
Betty3
Well-Known Member
In this case, I wouldn't think it would be worth employer taking employee to court though I don't know the amt. of the ticket. Agree, an employer can take an employee to court to recover a loss & for other reasons. (Anyone can take anyone else to court for anything at any time - might or might not win.)
Depends on the employer. Not all employers are rational. I worked for one that was not. I worked for one that had a Controler who considered any time anyone disagreed with him for any reason to be a direct personnal attack on him. He made the Chucky doll from Child's Play look positively Zen in comparison. I ended up going to CA-DLSE hearings because he could brass off the hearing officer to the point we were losing slaw dunk decisions.
Even with more sane employers, sometimes employers go to court to send a message to all of the other employees. I worked for one (same) employer who either settled very early, generally prior to the employee getting an attorney, or went the distance. Nothing in between. They assume that all employees talked to each other, even with NDAs, and appearing to cave to pressure was a Hydra's Head situation, where the "cure" was much worse then the "disease".
With the ticket in question, yes the dollar amout makes a difference, but so do the other circumstances. Sometimes the employer cannot afford to look the other way, no matter how small the dollars. At one employer we had a Sunday X-mas party, in house (bad idea). Company president comes in Monday to find two soon-to-be-former employees naked on his very expensive brand new office couch. With several empty bottles of very expensive champagne taken from his office refrigerator. Other then obvious action of firing them (after having security throw them both out of the building sans clothing), we sued Romeo and Juliet for all damages and costs. And won. HR (under orders) made a point of telling all prospective employers exactly why they were fired. And as long as this guy remained President we made a failry serious effort to collect the judgement. We ended up writing off most of the balance and costs (the day after the President retired), but from Romeo and Julliet's standpoint (as well as their spouses), this must have felt biblical.
Even with more sane employers, sometimes employers go to court to send a message to all of the other employees. I worked for one (same) employer who either settled very early, generally prior to the employee getting an attorney, or went the distance. Nothing in between. They assume that all employees talked to each other, even with NDAs, and appearing to cave to pressure was a Hydra's Head situation, where the "cure" was much worse then the "disease".
With the ticket in question, yes the dollar amout makes a difference, but so do the other circumstances. Sometimes the employer cannot afford to look the other way, no matter how small the dollars. At one employer we had a Sunday X-mas party, in house (bad idea). Company president comes in Monday to find two soon-to-be-former employees naked on his very expensive brand new office couch. With several empty bottles of very expensive champagne taken from his office refrigerator. Other then obvious action of firing them (after having security throw them both out of the building sans clothing), we sued Romeo and Juliet for all damages and costs. And won. HR (under orders) made a point of telling all prospective employers exactly why they were fired. And as long as this guy remained President we made a failry serious effort to collect the judgement. We ended up writing off most of the balance and costs (the day after the President retired), but from Romeo and Julliet's standpoint (as well as their spouses), this must have felt biblical.
Betty3
Well-Known Member
That's true - you never know what any individual employer will or will not do. (or for that matter, employees 
)
)- Status
Share this page
