15 U.S.C. § 1674
Restriction on discharge from employment by reason of garnishment
No employer may discharge any employee by reason of the fact that his earnings have been subjected to garnishment for any one indebtedness.
Whoever willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2022 · leading case: James E. Le Vick v. Skaggs Companies, Inc., 701 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1983).
James E. Le Vick v. Skaggs Companies, Inc., 701 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1983). “(Skaggs), alleging that he had been discharged by Skaggs in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1674 (a), which prohibits an employer from discharging an employee because the employee’s earnings have been subjected to garnishment.”
Simion Stepanischen v. Merchants Despatch Transp. Corp., 722 F.2d 922 (1st Cir. 1983). “The Le Vicíe and McCabe courts reasoned that an express private right of action in one section militates against implying a private right of action in another section of the same piece of legislation.”
Maple v. Citizens Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 437 F. Supp. 66 (W.D. Okla. 1977). “Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s dismissal of Plaintiff from Defendant’s employment violated 15 U.S.C. § 1674 (a) which forbids the discharge of an employee due to the garnishment of his wages for one indebtedness.”
Jack McCabe v. City of Eureka, Missouri, 664 F.2d 680 (8th Cir. 1981). “This appeal raises the single issue of whether an implied private right of action exists under 15 U.S.C. § 1674 (a) of the Consumer Credit Protection Act.”
Walter Monroe Smith v. Cotton Bros. Baking Co., Inc., 609 F.2d 738 (5th Cir. 1980). “Plaintiff’s complaint included one cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of the union contract, and a second cause of action for unlawful discharge in violation of Sub-chapter II of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1674 (a). During discovery,…”
Hodgson v. Cleveland Mun. Court, 326 F. Supp. 419 (N.D. Ohio 1971). “01 (last paragraph) by 15 U.S.C. § 1674 is also claimed by the Secretary.”
Ellis v. Glover & Gardner Constr. Co., 562 F. Supp. 1054 (M.D. Tenn. 1983). “The plaintiff seeks reinstatement, back-pay, and other relief, claiming that his discharge was in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1674 , which contains restrictions on discharge from employment by reason of garnishment.”
Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. S. California Gas Co., 715 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1983). “15 U.S.C. § 1674 (a). That section prohibits an employer from discharging an employee whose earnings “have been subjected to garnishment” on account of only one indebtedness.”
Johnson v. Town of Trail Creek, 771 F. Supp. 271 (N.D. Ind. 1991). “The defendants’ motion to dismiss requires the court to determine whether an alleged violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1674 (a), can form the basis for a claim under 42 U.”
Swears v. R.M. Roach & Sons, Inc., 696 S.E.2d 1 (W. Va. 2010). “§ 525 (b) (2000),] Consumer Credit Protection Act, [ 15 U.S.C. § 1674 (2000); W. Va.Code § 46A-2-131 (1999),] Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Act, [ 28 U.”
W. J. Usery, Jr., Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. First Nat'l Bank of Arizona, a Nat'l Banking Ass'n, 586 F.2d 107 (1st Cir. 1978). “Act § 304, 15 U.S.C. § 1674 . This purpose would not be furthered by extending the Act’s restrictions to garnishee banks since garnishments of bank accounts, unlike garnishment of an employer, is not likely to lead to loss of employment.”
Brown v. Liberty Loan Corp. of Duval, 392 F. Supp. 1023 (M.D. Fla. 1974). “” 15 U.S.C. § 1674 . Wilful violation of the discharge from employment provision, 15 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.