• 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.

employer requesting overpaid funds back

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

Mattyb1015

Junior Member
my former employer has sent me a letter requesting fund they overpaid me on my last paycheck. The overpayment was issued due to the term date being keyed incorrectly by their HR. I sent an email to all appropriate parties of my final day therefore they had the correct end date. I was unaware of the overpayment. I was salary and did not punch in or out so there is no record of hours in this instance. Do I legally have to repay these funds? The letter sent to me has zero information concerning ramifications of non payment.
 


cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Yes, you legally have to repay these funds. Nothing in the law gives you the right to keep money you didn't earn, no matter how the mistake occurred.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Yes, you legally have to repay these funds. Nothing in the law gives you the right to keep money you didn't earn, no matter how the mistake occurred.
I can imagine a few scenarios where that would not be the case. Fairly extreme ones for the most part, but some rather pedestrian.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
You can imagine a scenario where the law entitles him to profit from an error? Please, do tell where in any Federal or state wage and hour law he is entitled to keep money he did not earn and is not entitled to, but was paid due to a clerical error.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
You can imagine a scenario where the law entitles him to profit from an error? Please, do tell where in any Federal or state wage and hour law he is entitled to keep money he did not earn and is not entitled to, but was paid due to a clerical error.
Ok, here is a pedestrian one.

He is on salary and typically worked anywhere from 35 to 45 hours per weeks depending on the week and no time records were ever kept. His final week he worked 30 hours but there was no record of the actual hours worked, and they paid him his regular salary. Later, they tried to claim that he needed to repay 10 hours on a prorated basis, but they had no solid records of the hours he worked that week.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
But that isn't what happened. He knows what hours he worked and in fact there is a record of them; it simply was keyed incorrectly. Try again.

But before you do, take note of the fact that I didn't say there were no circumstances where he would not owe the money back - I can think of a few myself, but they don't fit the fact pattern we have. Got one that does? I'll wait.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
But that isn't what happened. He knows what hours he worked and in fact there is a record of them; it simply was keyed incorrectly. Try again.

But before you do, take note of the fact that I didn't say there were no circumstances where he would not owe the money back - I can think of a few myself, but they don't fit the fact pattern we have. Got one that does? I'll wait.
The OP said this in the first post:

was salary and did not punch in or out so there is no record of hours in this instance.
That is why I responded the way that I did.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
He also said that he sent the appropriate information to HR but that it was keyed incorrectly.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Ok, here is a pedestrian one.

He is on salary and typically worked anywhere from 35 to 45 hours per weeks depending on the week and no time records were ever kept. His final week he worked 30 hours but there was no record of the actual hours worked, and they paid him his regular salary. Later, they tried to claim that he needed to repay 10 hours on a prorated basis, but they had no solid records of the hours he worked that week.
That example is not a winner. Even in this example the employee would legally owe a refund to the employer. You are showing a situation where the employer proving their position may be problematic but it does not remove the indebtedness to the employer.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
That example is not a winner. Even in this example the employee would legally owe a refund to the employer. You are showing a situation where the employer proving their position may be problematic but it does not remove the indebtedness to the employer.
If someone is on salary rather than hourly how can you say that in my example they would owe money back to the employer? If they worked 50 hours that week rather than 30 you wouldn't say that the employer owed them money.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
If someone is on salary rather than hourly how can you say that in my example they would owe money back to the employer? If they worked 50 hours that week rather than 30 you wouldn't say that the employer owed them money.
By the specifics you listed the employee was overpaid and the employer was owed a refund. While proving it may be problematic, the fact remains; the employee was overpaid and the overpayment is owed to the employer. You are mistaking proving a fact with the simple reality of the fact.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
The FLSA expressly states that in the first and last week of employment, even an exempt employee is only due pay for the time he actually worked. JAL is right. While it might be a problem to determine the amount that was actually due back in your example, he would still owe the refund. I don't disagree that there are situations where that might not be true, but I don't think you've hit on one yet. It would be far more likely in benefit situations than in wage situations - for example, with a 401(k). I'm not sure I can come up with a fact pattern where overpaid wages would not be due back unless the state SOL had expired.

But, once again, that is not the issue. Under the facts we have, the refund is legally due.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
The FLSA expressly states that in the first and last week of employment, even an exempt employee is only due pay for the time he actually worked. JAL is right. While it might be a problem to determine the amount that was actually due back in your example, he would still owe the refund. I don't disagree that there are situations where that might not be true, but I don't think you've hit on one yet. It would be far more likely in benefit situations than in wage situations - for example, with a 401(k). I'm not sure I can come up with a fact pattern where overpaid wages would not be due back unless the state SOL had expired.

But, once again, that is not the issue. Under the facts we have, the refund is legally due.
Does the same rule apply if they work more than 40 hours in the first or last week? I am just being curious with that question.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
An exempt employee is never, under any circumstances whatsoever, entitled by law to be paid more than his or her salary. There are six situations in which they can legally be paid less; first/last week of employment is one of the six.

A legally binding and enforceable contract could conceivably require additional compensation. The law does not. Ever. Not if they're exempt.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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