Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 34-4-3 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 34-4-3 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 34-4-3

TITLE 34 LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Section 4. Minimum Wage Law, 34-4-1 through 34-4-6.

34-4-3. Amount of minimum wage to be paid by employers; employers and employees covered by chapter.

  1. Except as otherwise provided in this Code section, every employer, whether a person, firm, or corporation, shall pay to all covered employees a minimum wage which shall be not less than $5.15 per hour for each hour worked in the employment of such employer.
  2. This chapter shall not apply with respect to:
    1. Any employer that has sales of $40,000.00 per year or less;
    2. Any employer having five employees or less;
    3. Any employer of domestic employees;
    4. Any employer who is a farm owner, sharecropper, or land renter;
    5. Any employee whose compensation consists wholly or partially of gratuities;
    6. Any employee who is a high school or college student;
    7. Any individual who is employed as a newspaper carrier; or
    8. Any individual who is employed by a nonprofit child-caring institution or long-term care facility serving children or mentally disabled adults who are enrolled in such institution and reside in residential facilities of the institution, if such employee resides in such facilities, receives without cost board and lodging from such institution, and is compensated on a cash basis at an annual rate of not less than $10,000.00.
  3. This chapter shall not apply to any employer who is subject to the minimum wage provisions of any act of Congress as to employees covered thereby if such act of Congress provides for a minimum wage which is greater than the minimum wage which is provided for in this Code section.

(Ga. L. 1970, p. 153, §§ 2, 6-8; Ga. L. 1984, p. 1324, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 201, § 1.)

Law reviews.

- For note on the 2001 amendment to this Code section, see 18 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 183 (2001).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Ordinance strengthening minimum wage law.

- There is no unconstitutional conflict between the state minimum wage law as codified in this section and a city ordinance, which requires payment of the prescribed Davis-Bacon Act wage scale in construction projects in excess of $10,000.00, when the ordinance does not detract from or hinder the operation of that section, but rather it augments and strengthens it. City of Atlanta v. Associated Bldrs. & Contractors, 240 Ga. 655, 242 S.E.2d 139 (1978).

Employee not "covered".

- Employee that fell under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., exemption was not effectively "covered" by the Act for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 34-4-3(c) analysis, thereby prohibiting that employee from receiving minimum wage compensation under the Georgia Minimum Wage Law (GMWL), O.C.G.A. § 34-4-1 et seq. Anderson v. Southern Home Care Services, Inc., 298 Ga. 175, 780 S.E.2d 339 (2015).

Individual whose employment consisted of providing in-home personal support services was not prohibited from receiving minimum wage compensation under the Georgia Minimum Wage Law, O.C.G.A. § 34-4-1, et seq., pursuant to the "domestic employees" exception articulated in O.C.G.A. § 34-4-3(b)(3). Anderson v. Southern Home Care Services, Inc., 298 Ga. 175, 780 S.E.2d 339 (2015).

Cited in City of Atlanta v. Associated Bldrs. & Contractors, 143 Ga. App. 115, 237 S.E.2d 601 (1977).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 48B Am. Jur. 2d, Labor and Labor Relations, §§ 2741, 2960.

C.J.S.

- 51B C.J.S., Labor Relations, §§ 1218 et seq., 1234 et seq., 1302 et seq.

ALR.

- Waiver of statutory right to minimum wage or benefit of regulation as to hours of labor, 102 A.L.R. 842; 129 A.L.R. 1145.

Employee's or agent's acceptance of bonus, gratuity, or other personal benefit from one with whom he deals on employer's or principal's account as affecting his right to recover wages, salary, or commissions, 102 A.L.R. 1115.

Waiver or loss of statutory right to minimum wage or benefit of regulation as to hours of labor, 128 A.L.R. 1145.

Validity of statute, or administrative regulation thereunder, which in effect guarantees to part-time employees minimum wages regardless of the time of their actual employment, 143 A.L.R. 1086.

Validity of statute or regulation in respect of tips, 147 A.L.R. 1039.

Nonprofit charitable institutions as within operation of labor statutes, 26 A.L.R.2d 1020.

Validity of minimum wage statutes relating to private employment, 39 A.L.R.2d 740.

Who is employed in "professional capacity" within exemptions from minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act, 72 A.L.R.2d 1156, 77 A.L.R. Fed. 681.

Who is executive, administrator, supervisor, or the like, under exemption for such employees from state minimum wage and overtime pay statutes, 85 A.L.R.4th 519.

Who is employed in "executive capacity" within exemption, under 29 USCS § 213(a)(l), from minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act (29 USCS § 201 et seq.), 131 A.L.R. Fed. 1

Who is "employee employed in agriculture" and therefore exempt from overtime provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act by § 13 (b)(12) of Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 213(b)(12)), 162 A.L.R. Fed. 575.

Tips as wages for purposes of state wage laws, 61 A.L.R. 6th 61.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 34-4-3

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Cannon v. Lardner, 368 S.E.2d 730 (Ga. 1988).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 3, 1988 | 258 Ga. 332

Copy

Anderson v. S. Home Care Servs.., Inc., 298 Ga. 175 (Ga. 2015).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 23, 2015 | 780 S.E.2d 339

...The employers removed the case to a federal district court, which certified two questions to this Court: 1. Is an employee that falls under an FLSA [Fair Labor Standards Act] exemption effectively “covered” by the FLSA for purposes of OCGA § 34-4-3 (c) analysis, thereby prohibiting said employee from receiving minimum wage compensation under the GMWL? 2. Is an individual whose employment consists of providing in-home personal support services prohibited from receiving minimum wage compensation under the GMWL pursuant to the “domestic employees” exception articulated in OCGA § 34-4-3 (b) (3)? As explained below, we answer both of these questions no. 1....
...s, arguing, among other things, that the Employers are subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 USC §§ 201 to 219, and the Employees had not identified any FLSA exception, so the Employers were exempt from the GMWL under OCGA § 34-4-3 (c)....
...See OCGA § 34-4-6 (requiring claims under the GMWL to be brought within three years of the GMWL violation). The Employers again moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing first that because the Employers are subject to the FLSA, the Employees are not covered by the GMWL under OCGA § 34-4-3 (a), and second that the GMWL does not apply to the Employees because they were “domestic employees” exempted under OCGA § 34-4-3 (b) (3)....
...s Code section, every employer, whether a person, firm, or corporation, shall pay to all covered employees a minimum wage which shall be not less than $5.15 per hour for each hour worked in the employment of such employer. OCGA § 34-4-3 (a).5 The Employees assert that under this provision, they must 4 The district court has not yet decided the question of class certification. 5 The GMWL was enacted in 1970 with a minimum wage of $1.25 per hour....
...4 be paid at least $5.15 per hour for the time they spent on the job traveling from one worksite to another. “Employer” is defined as “any person or entity that employs one or more employees,” OCGA § 34-4-3.1 (a) (2), so it is clear that the Employers here are subject to the Georgia statute. The Employers contend, however, that the Employees come within the exception to the GMWL found in OCGA § 34-4-3 (c), which says: This chapter shall not apply to any employer who is subject to the minimum wage provisions of any act of Congress as to employees covered thereby if such act of Congress provides for a minimum w...
...among the several States or between any State and any place outside thereof”). See also 29 USC § 202 (a) (“Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.”). That is not, however, all that is required for the GMWL exception to apply. OCGA § 34-4-3 (c) looks not only to whether the employer is “subject to the minimum wage provisions of any act of Congress” but also to whether the employees in question are “covered thereby” – thereby referring, like “subject to” does f...
...until July 24, 2007, the FLSA and GMWL minimum wages were the same – $5.15 per hour. See former 29 USC § 206 (effective Aug. 20, 1996 to July 24, 2007). So even if the Employers were correct (which they are not) in arguing that the Employees met the requirement in OCGA § 34-4-3 (c) of being “covered by” the FLSA, the FLSA did not “provide[] for a minimum wage which is greater than the minimum wage which is provided for in [the GMWL]” during that period, and so this GMWL exception did not apply during that...
...FLSA exemption, they were still “covered” by the FLSA because the Employees were exempt only from the minimum wage and maximum hour requirements of the FLSA, meaning that they were covered by other FLSA provisions. But again, the text of OCGA § 34-4-3 (c) does not speak in terms of employees’ coverage by the FLSA (or other acts of Congress) in general....
...Thus, it appears that, going forward, home health care workers (like the Employees) employed by third-party agencies (like the Employers) will be covered by the minimum wage (and maximum hour) requirements of the FLSA and, if that is correct, exempted from the GMWL under OCGA § 34-4-3 (a). Because this case involves a complaint for unpaid minimum wages arising before 2015, however, the changes in the federal regulations do not render the certified questions moot. 9 OCGA § 34-4-3 (c) will produce “absurd” results, because it means that the GMWL also applies to other categories of Georgia employees who are exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage provisions under 29 USC § 213, and in particular the large category of executive, administrative, professional, and teaching employees....
...It hardly seems absurd that the General Assembly would want such a minimal level of wage protection for this category of employee.10 For these reasons, we answer the first certified question no. 3. The Employers argue that even if the Employees were not exempt from the GMWL under OCGA § 34-4-3 (c), they were exempt as “domestic employees” under § 34-4-3 (b) (2), which says that the GMWL “shall not apply with respect to ....
...not like the household services performed by “cooks, maids, baby-sitters, handymen, gardeners, and chauffeurs.” Notably, the FLSA specifically refers to “companionship services” in its exemption, see 29 USC § 213 (a) (15), whereas the GMWL does not, see OCGA § 34-4-3 (b) (3)....
...of the Georgia Code does not apply to “domestic servants,” the pleadings allege that the Employers have paid workers’ compensation for employees like the Employees here. For all these reasons, we hold that “domestic employees” as that term is used in OCGA § 34-4-3 (b) (2) must work in or about the homes of their employers, and the Employers are therefore not exempt from the GMWL under that provision....