60-2311. Discharge of employee due to wage garnishment prohibited. No employer may discharge any employee by reason of the fact that the employee's earnings have been subjected to wage garnishment.
History: L. 1970, ch. 238, § 2; L. 1973, ch. 237, § 1; L. 1979, ch. 183, § 6; July 1.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Discharge of public employee because of legal proceedings involving employee's financial condition, see 75-4316.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"The New Kansas Consumer Legislation," Barkley Clark, 42 J.B.A.K. 147, 149 (1973).
"Restrictions on Garnishment and Their Enforcement: Focus on Judicial Implication of a Private Remedy," 23 K.L.R. 729, 735 (1975).
"Rights of Kansas Non-Union Employees Against Unjust Termination—Where Are We Now?" William C. Nulton, 54 J.K.B.A. 237, 239 (1985).
"Personnel Policy Manuals as Legally Enforceable Contracts: The Implied-in-Fact Contract—A Limitation on the Employer's Right to Terminate at Will," Michael D. Strong, 29 W.L.J. 368, 373 (1990).
"Employment Law: After-Acquired Evidence Doctrine—An Affirmative Defense for Kansas Employers to Bar Relief for Wrongful Discharge," Robert L. Shuck, 37 W.L.J. 215 (1997).
"Vengeance is not Mine: A Survey of the Law of Title VII Retaliation," Nancy Landis Caplenger and Diane S. Worth, 73 J.K.B.A. No. 4, 20 (2004).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Statute enabling state to recover expenditures in providing counsel for indigent defendants (K.S.A. 22-4513) violated equal protection clause of U.S. Constitution. James v. Strange, 407 U.S. 128, 92 S. Ct. 2027, 2028, 32 L. Ed. 2d 600.
2. Money due independent contractor under construction contract not earnings, not within partial exemption provisions of statute. Coward v. Smith, 6 Kan. App. 2d 863, 864, 636 P.2d 793 (1981).
|
|