Skip to main content

Mandatory Payroll Debit Cards Unlawful...At Least in Pennsylvania


Siciliano v. Albert/Carol Mueller t/a McDonalds - Superior Court of Pennsylvania


Facts:  Albert and Carol Mueller ("Muellers"), through a limited partnership, owned and operated 16 McDonalds franchises throughout Pennsylvania.  A class of current and former McDonalds' hourly employees brought suit against the Muellers and alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL").  These employees claimed the Muellers violated the WPCL by paying employee wages from November 2010 to July 2013 by way of mandatory JP Morgan Chase payroll debit cards, instead of by cash or check.  After the class was certified, the lower court denied the Muellers' motion for summary judgment.  Included in the court's order were instructions that the decision could be immediately appealed.  The Muellers subsequently appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Holding:  The Superior Court began its analysis with a review of Section 260.3 of the WPCL which holds that "The wages shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check."  In this instance, the Court held the language of the statue was clear and therefore there was no need to look beyond the plain language of the WPCL.  As a result, under the language of the statute, a debit card is not "lawful money" or a "check" as provided by the WPCL.

The Court then turned to the Muellers' argument that a debit card is the functional equivalent of lawful money or a check.  However, the Court noted that the mandatory debit cards resulted in the hourly employees incurring fees, over the counter cash withdrawal charges, and other related charges...unless the employees complied with the JP Morgan Chase requirements.  Had the debit cards been voluntary, the Court held that could be an appropriate method of wage payment.  However, the Court held that until the language of the WPCL is altered, mandatory payroll debit cards did not comply with the statute and were therefore improper.

Judgment:  The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that under Pennsylvania law, an employer cannot mandate that hourly wages be paid via payroll debit cards to its employees.

The Takeaway:  This was one of the more succinct opinions I have read in some time.  Since the statute was clear on its face, there was no need to look beyond the plain meaning of what the statute actually stated:  "The wages shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check."  Interesting to note the Court differentiated between mandatory and voluntary payroll debit cards on the grounds that employees who voluntarily chose to be paid via payroll debit cards could be lawful.  However, under the language of the WPCL, as written, there simply was no argument for the Muellers to base their claim.  As always, the laws can vary by state...so double check the laws in your jurisdiction to see how mandatory payroll debit cards are handled. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Lazarus

Date:  October 21, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/eld/SicilianoMueller102116.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more