Posted on 03/20/2015 at 08:13 AM by Russell Samson
In its March 11, 2015, decision in Mujkic v. Lynx, Inc. (No. 14-0636), the Iowa Court of Appeals was presented with several claims under the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act, Iowa Code Chapter 91A. Some of plaintiff Rifet Mujkic's claims were rejected because the court found he was an independent contractor of Lynx during the last part of his work there. By its terms, the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act applies only to employees, and the decision includes a good discussion of the difference between employees and independent contracts for purposes of that statute. However, for about his first two months at Lynx, Mujkic was truly an employee, so Chapter 91A applied to protect his wage payments during small sliver of time. Mujkic was first hired by Lynx as a truck driver and was paid on a per-mile basis. The company was responsible for all of the operating expenses for the company-owned vehicle he was assigned to drive (e.g., fuel, tolls, repairs, insurance, registration). Lynx drivers were also provided a T-Check account card to pay for fuel. To use the card, the employee was required to either enter a PIN or to sign something at the point of purchase. With pre-approval from Lynx, drivers could also receive cash advances for personal expenses by using the T-Check system. If advances were made, the company deducted them from its drivers paychecks. Lynx took money from the paychecks of employee to fund an escrow account for the employee. The deductions were $100 per paycheck, taken until the employees escrow account maximum of $1,000 was reached. The escrow account was used to cover insurance deductibles for accidents caused by Lynx drivers. Any money remaining in the Lynx employees escrow account at the end of employment was paid to the employee. Iowa Code Section 91A.5(1)(b) provides:
1. An employer shall not withhold or divert any portion of an employees wages unless:
a. The employer is required or permitted to do so by state or federal law or by order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or
b. The employer has written authorization from the employee to so deduct for any lawful purpose accruing to the benefit of the employee.
Lynx, Inc. did not have a written authorization to make deductions for either the escrow account or the reimbursement of advances made through T-Check from Mujkics paycheck. The court ruled that the absence of a written authorization was not fatal to Lynx for the money it advanced Mujkic for personal use through the T-Check system because:
[T]he challenged deductions were not wages owed or due to him. The evidence presented at trial established the T-Check advances made to Mujkic were moneys paid by Lynx in advance of when Mujkic earned them. Consequently, the subsequent payroll deductions were not withholdings of Mujkics wages due or owed, because the money deducted was not then due and owing to Mujkicit had already been paid. The T-check deductions were merely reimbursements to Lynx for advances on wages Mujkic expected to earn. In other words, if not for the T-Check deductions, Mujkic would, in effect, be indebted to Lynx.
Lynx was not so lucky with regard to the escrow deductions taken from Mujkics pay checks:
We reach a different conclusion as to the escrow payments. . . . Lynxs action in withholding escrow payments from Mujkics wages in February and March 2012 without written authorization from Mujkic constituted a violation of chapter 91A. Further, the deductions were not for the benefit of the employee. The deductions were withheld to reimburse the employer for property damage occurring to the employers vehicle. Such deductions are expressly prohibited by statute.
Indeed, section 91A.5(2) lists prohibited pay check deductions including those for losses due to breakage or damage to property. In summary, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that an advance on wages can later be deducted from wages due without a written authorization; but a deduction to cover damage to the employers property can never be taken from wages paid to an Iowa employee, even if the employee provided written authorization for such a deduction. Taking it a step beyond the courts decisions, Iowa employers can true up a later pay check if an earlier pay check to the employee contained an error or overpayment. In that case, the correcting deduction can be subtracted from the gross pay (because the employer has already withheld taxes, including Social Security and Medicare, and paid the employers share of taxes). That is different from an employers attempt to collect a debt it claims the employee owes the company by making a unilateral deduction. Regardless, because of the number of calls I have received (and amounts involved in some of the calls), I am not a fan of employers letting employees charge personal expenses on an employers business account, or employers giving advances against the employees future earnings, as happened here. That said, I recognize that it is the employers business and it can do as it likes. But, it seems to me that each instance of such use is a loan to the employee and a loan based on the employers credit. Prudent business practices suggest that any loan be documented in writing so that there is a mutual understanding of its terms. The courts opinion doesnt specify how much money Mujkic obtained for his personal use through T-Check advances money he subsequently claimed was wrongfully subtracted from his paycheck, so he should get it back (plus liquidated damages, and attorney fees). Even though Lynx successfully defended the claim for T-Check advances, how much money did it have to pay its attorneys to defend against the claimsclaims brought by an employee who was a friend of the owner since childhood in Bosnia? A written agreement might have cut that claim off at a much earlier stage, if not altogether. Imagine the chagrin if the employee had been successful and had been awarded the amount withheld plus an equal amount for liquidated damages plus several thousand dollars in attorneys fees and costs, and the employer additionally had to pay for its own lawyer and was unable to recover the advances (the loans to the employee). That is a fairly negative impact on an employers balance sheet that could have been cured by a written agreement. So Iowa employers, have you gone through all of the paperwork you have individuals sign when starting employment to assure that you have appropriate authorizations for all deductions you may want to make from an employees paycheck? And are all of those deductions you plan to take actually lawful under Iowas Wage Payment Collection law?
The material in this blog is not intended, nor should it be construed or relied upon, as legal advice. Please consult with an attorney if specific legal information is needed.
Questions, Contact us today.
The material, whether written or oral (including videos) that is posted on the various blogs of Dickinson Law is not intended, nor should it be construed or relied upon, as legal advice. The opinions expressed in the various blog posting are those of the individual author, they may not reflect the opinions of the firm. Your use of the Dickinson Law blog postings does NOT create an attorney-client relationship between you and Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C. or any of its attorneys. If specific legal information is needed, please retain and consult with an attorney of your own selection.