Perpetually late paychecks

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post 09-09-2009 4:59 AM by mcarson87. 8 replies.
  • 08-18-2009 9:51 PM

    Perpetually late paychecks

    I reside in Los Angeles and have a Boston based employer.  As of Jaunuary they have started a 'go green' project required everyone in the company to sign up for direct deposit. 

    I had direct deposit with them previously but opted for live checks because on 2 occassions there was a 'problem' with the check.  One time it was deposited, and then 3 days later, the funds were gone leaving my account approx -2000.  I accrued over 400$ in bank fees etc, and never received an explanation as to why the check mysteriously bounced.  Although they did attend to it immediately (within 2 days) i was never reimbursed the 400$ in fees.  About a year later it happened again.  After that, i decided live checks only.

    As far as i know a small group of us spread out globally are still getting live checks.  However, when we receive them range anywhere from 2 days before payday, to 3 weeks after payday, with little to no consistency.  Sometimes it's just 3 or 4 days later, but it's still extremely inconvenient. 

    So i guess I have a couple questions:

    1.  Can they force me to sign up for Direct Deposit?

    2.  Are they required by law to pay me by any specific time frame?  My dates are the 1st & 15th of the month. I called the California Labor Board, and they said within 72 hours, but i can't find documentation online to back that up unless it pertains to ending employment.

    Apologies for the length, and thank you in advance for any advice.

  • 08-18-2009 10:06 PM In reply to

    • Drew
      Consumer
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-30-2000
    • PA
    • Posts 48,958

    Re: Perpetually late paychecks

    I suppose if you want to be a technical pain they merely put you on the fire first list.....so be careful.  I'd complain in numbers if CA checks were slow to make it or were retracted ....

     

    Being paid timely is a big deal in some states---I recall days when our computer crashed we'd send drivers out to make deliveries of checks in another nearby state lest the dept of labor give us trouble.

     

     



  • 08-18-2009 10:17 PM In reply to

    Re: Perpetually late paychecks

    Yeah, i get it.  I don't want to be a pain, on the flip side, i'd like to freaking get paid for the 109 hour work week i just put in... 

  • 09-07-2009 12:58 PM In reply to

    Re: Perpetually late paychecks

    There are laws that are specific to your state and you should check your state's and the Massachusetts' employment department.

    Kristin

    Lawyers.com Community Moderator

    Join us on Twitter (Lawyerscom) & our Facebook Fan Page!

     

  • 09-08-2009 5:34 PM In reply to

    Re: Perpetually late paychecks

    Actually CA law would apply since the employee is in CA.

  • 09-08-2009 7:37 PM In reply to

    • Drew
      Consumer
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-30-2000
    • PA
    • Posts 48,958

    Re: Perpetually late paychecks

    There is probably a string of cases in CA along this line......and to me damages due to bounced paychecks should be recoverable!

    "A federal court recently determined that an employer's issuance of paychecks drawn on non-California banks warrants the imposition of sizable penalties.  Specifically, in Solis v. Regis Corporation, plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that by issuing paychecks drawn on an Illinois bank, Regis violated Labor Code section 212, which requires that California paychecks be "payable in cash, on demand, without discount, at some established place of business in the state, the name and address of which must appear on the instrument."  Plaintiff sought penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 225.5 (authorizing a civil penalty against any person who unlawfully withholds wages due to a violation of Section 212) because some of them had been forced to pay additional fees to cash these out-of-state payroll checks.

    Although Regis admitted a technical violation of Section 212, it argued that it did not owe penalties for those employees who had been able to cash their paychecks for no charge -- in other words, employees who did not pay a check-cashing fee had no wages withheld and, therefore, no penalty should be imposed.

    The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California disagreed, holding that regardless of whether an employee had been injured, Regis technically violated the statute by paying employees with checks that did not comply with Section 212.  The court recognized that Section 225.5 penalties apply only when workers have to pay a fee, but noted that even if penalties are not available under Section 225.5 for those employees who did not pay such fees, penalties are available to them under California's Private Attorneys General Act. 

    The Solis decision is a harsh reminder to employers of the importance of periodically having their employment policies and practices audited to ensure that they are in full compliance with California's intricate maze of labor laws.  If you have any questions regarding the Solis decision or your company's pay practices,"



Page 1 of 1 (9 items) | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community