This applies to the employee`s or potential employee`s money, not just the salary he or she receives for the work. The subject was so controversial that Sanders created an office policy for such cases. To prevent victims from facing the dilemma, he generally chooses not to enter a plea that involves parole if the stolen amount exceeds $10,000. A deduction that benefits an employer and corresponds to a premium, a registered contract or a contract is appropriate in limited situations. In Brennan, for example, the 5th arrondissement found that one of the “justice-recognized” exceptions to the FLSA was “the reimbursement of money diverted by the worker to the employer” and that the employer`s recovery could be done “through wage deductions, even if they reduce the worker`s net wage below the minimum wage.” Id. to 1369. The Fifth Circuit also explained that “where an employee took some money, had the use of it, and has to return it… there would be no violation of laboratory law, because the worker took more than the amount of his salary and the performance could in no way reduce his salary below the minimum. Mayhue`s Super Liquor Stores, Inc. Hodgson, 464 F.2d 1196, 1198 (5. Cir.
1972); see also, Goulas v. LaGreca, n° 12-898, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80368, at 27 n.3 (E.D. La. June 6, 2013) (“In this case, Services attempts to compensate for the overtime wages it owes to Goulas with other wages that it actually owes to Goulas. This is clearly allowed under Singer and is not isolated by Martin. Chen v. Cayman Arts, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1301 (S.D. Fla.
2010) (“There are three court-created exceptions that allow wage deductions, even if they reduce the net wage to less than the minimum wage,” even though “the worker misappropriated the employer`s money”). Some premiums have a clause that allows an employer to deduct money from a worker`s salary without their consent. If a registered agreement authorizes the deduction, the employee must still approve the deduction. Richard Goodwin Sr. was given a five-year suspended sentence in 2011 and ordered to repay $11,000 to reimburse his victim for stolen rare coins. Getting a part of an employee back is sometimes called a cash-back system. If an employer violates this labour law, money spent or paid by a worker is treated as a deduction. The worker is entitled to reimbursement of the remuneration by his employer up to the amount spent or paid. The amounts paid by future workers can also be recovered, whether or not they work with the employer. This is also the case when the deduction is made in accordance with a premium, a registered contract or a contract. This refund is appropriate because Tony had a choice about how the money was refunded, and the amount and frequency of each payment.
If the refund is not agreed, the employer should seek legal advice. In too many cases, when an organization discovers the theft or embezzlement, the person responsible has spent or misappropriated the illegal income and has little or no means to obtain reasonable refunds.