• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Billed for quitting?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

K

Kermit42

Guest
I live in Oregon and my boss wants to charge me to quit. We (his employees) are all technically contractors lease vehicles from him on a daily basis. He is increasing our lease fees and I am wanting to quit. But he has stated I will be charged $250 as that is his cost to replace me. This can't be legal can it?

Thanks in advance,
David
 


I

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
Kermit42 said:
I live in Oregon and my boss wants to charge me to quit. We (his employees) are all technically contractors lease vehicles from him on a daily basis. He is increasing our lease fees and I am wanting to quit. But he has stated I will be charged $250 as that is his cost to replace me. This can't be legal can it?

Thanks in advance,
David
Click to expand...


My response:

Was there a prior agreement concerning this issue?

If no, tell him to shove it where the sun don't shine.

IAAL
 
K

Kermit42

Guest
It was not agreed upon prior and he has stated it will simply be taken out of our last paycheck... That seems to be the way he does business because he knows it is not worth our money to get a lawyer and fight him over the little stuff he does...
 
I

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
Kermit42 said:
It was not agreed upon prior and he has stated it will simply be taken out of our last paycheck... That seems to be the way he does business because he knows it is not worth our money to get a lawyer and fight him over the little stuff he does...
Click to expand...

My response:

You won't have to get a lawyer. That's why there's such a thing called "Small Claims Court".

IAAL
 
K

Kermit42

Guest
My understanding of small claims is that it is somewhat useless in that they just tell them to pay but there is little to no enforcement of that ruling...
 
K

Kermit42

Guest
but yeah I would be willing to do that, especially since he probably wouldn't even go, since he has to know he would lose...
 
I

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
Kermit42 said:
My understanding of small claims is that it is somewhat useless in that they just tell them to pay but there is little to no enforcement of that ruling...
Click to expand...

My response:

Then, by all means, let him take the unwarranted "set-off" against your wages, and let him trample all over you.

Courts don't go after your judgment. It's up to you to enforce your judgment. But, that's not too difficult to do - - you obtain your judgment, wait the 30 days, and when he doesn't pay you apply for and obtain a writ of attachment. Who knows, if he's that stupid, you might wind up owning his business.

You can buy a very good "How To" book on this subject at Barnes & Noble. Then, you'll have all the information you need, and will know exactly what you need to do to enforce your judgment.

IAAL
 
K

Kermit42

Guest
hmm, sounds good... to small claims I go :)

thank you very much for the advice
 
J

JETX

Senior Member
And while you are considering taking this guy to court (small claims or otherwise), be sure to reference the following Oregon statute:
"652.610 Itemized statement of amounts and purposes of deductions required.
(3) No employer may withhold, deduct or divert any portion of an employee’s wages unless:
(a) The employer is required to do so by law;
(b) The deductions are authorized in writing by the employee, are for the employee’s benefit, and are recorded in the employer’s books;
(c) The employee has voluntarily signed an authorization for a deduction for any other item, provided that the ultimate recipient of the money withheld is not the employer, and that such deduction is recorded in the employer’s books;
(d) The deduction is authorized by a collective bargaining agreement to which the employer is a party;
(e) The deduction is authorized under ORS 18.736; or
(f) The deduction is made from the payment of wages upon termination of employment and is authorized pursuant to a written agreement between the employee and employer for the repayment of a loan made to the employee by the employer, if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The employee has voluntarily signed the agreement;
(B) The loan was paid to the employee in cash or other medium permitted by ORS 652.110;
(C) The loan was made solely for the employee’s benefit and was not used, either directly or indirectly, for any purpose required by the employer or connected with the employee’s employment with the employer;
(D) The amount of the deduction at termination of employment does not exceed the amount permitted to be garnished under ORS 18.385; and
(E) The deduction is recorded in the employer’s books."
Source: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/652.html
 
I

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
JETX said:
And while you are considering taking this guy to court (small claims or otherwise), be sure to reference the following Oregon statute:
"652.610 Itemized statement of amounts and purposes of deductions required.
(3) No employer may withhold, deduct or divert any portion of an employee’s wages unless:
(a) The employer is required to do so by law;
(b) The deductions are authorized in writing by the employee, are for the employee’s benefit, and are recorded in the employer’s books;
(c) The employee has voluntarily signed an authorization for a deduction for any other item, provided that the ultimate recipient of the money withheld is not the employer, and that such deduction is recorded in the employer’s books;
(d) The deduction is authorized by a collective bargaining agreement to which the employer is a party;
(e) The deduction is authorized under ORS 18.736; or
(f) The deduction is made from the payment of wages upon termination of employment and is authorized pursuant to a written agreement between the employee and employer for the repayment of a loan made to the employee by the employer, if all of the following conditions are met:
(A) The employee has voluntarily signed the agreement;
(B) The loan was paid to the employee in cash or other medium permitted by ORS 652.110;
(C) The loan was made solely for the employee’s benefit and was not used, either directly or indirectly, for any purpose required by the employer or connected with the employee’s employment with the employer;
(D) The amount of the deduction at termination of employment does not exceed the amount permitted to be garnished under ORS 18.385; and
(E) The deduction is recorded in the employer’s books."
Source: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/652.html
Click to expand...


My response:

That's the problem JetX - - I don't think David is an employee. While he did say, "We (his employees) are all technically contractors lease vehicles from him on a daily basis", I just think that was a poor choice of words. I have a feeling David may be a taxi driver who leases his car from a taxi company and is, therefore, an "independent contractor".

IAAL
 
J

JETX

Senior Member
I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:
That's the problem JetX - - I don't think David is an employee. While he did say, "We (his employees) are all technically contractors lease vehicles from him on a daily basis", I just think that was a poor choice of words. I have a feeling David may be a taxi driver who leases his car from a taxi company and is, therefore, an "independent contractor".
Click to expand...
Good point... and catch. So, David, which is it??? Are you a 1099 'independent contractor', or a W-2 'employee'???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top