Amy S. Vance


racial, discrimination, employment, minority, employer, employee, garnishment, business necessity


This note evaluates the hypothesis that employment policies which mandate suspension or discharge for multiple garnishments are racially discriminatory. It considers the methods of challenge such as a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the lack of consensus between the courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and also emerging issues. The note finds that the legality of employment practices imposing disciplinary action against garnished employees is left uncertain. Proof of a disproportionate effect on minorities employees may be adequate, although a satisfactory showing of business necessity may be a defense against a claim of a Title VII violation. What constitutes a "satisfactory" showing of business necessity varies by jurisdiction but the note concludes that with the trend towards finding such practices racially suspect, employers should reconsider their policies.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.