High Court Garnishment Ruling Favors Poor Blacks and Whites
Press Release
June 18, 1969

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Volume 6. High Court Garnishment Ruling Favors Poor Blacks and Whites, 1969. e8f1fa8e-b992-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/2a32d70e-204f-4edf-ad47-cb328952df26/high-court-garnishment-ruling-favors-poor-blacks-and-whites. Accessed April 22, 2025.
Copied!
3G Serene ey President Hon. Francis E. Rivers PRESS RELEASE Director-Counsel egal efense lund Jack Greenberg Director, Public Relations ‘ NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. Jesse DeVore, Jr. 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 6-8397 NIGHT NUMBER 212-749-8487 25 FOR RELEASE WEDNLSPAY June ls, 1969 HIGH COURT GARNISHMENT RULING FAVORS POOR BLACKS AND WiiTTES Legal Defense Fund Makes Major Breakthrough Every year between 100,000 and 300,000 American workers are fired from their jobs as a result of wage garnishment. The great majority of them are those whose jobs stand between themselves and starvation--the poor, both black and white. This week there came a crucial turning point in alleviating this problem when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employees are entitled to a court hearing and that creditors must prove the exis- tence of a legitimate debt before they can garnishee a paycheck. The High Court handed down the ruling in response to an appeal of a consumer protection case brought by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. The appellant was Christine Sniadach, a $65-a-week white employee of an instrument company in Milwaukee. A finance company contended that Mrs. Sniadach owed $420 and garnisheed her pay without giving her a chance to prove in court that she didn't owe them any money or that she had a defense (such as fraud) to their suit. This week's Supreme Court ruling outlaws Wisconsin's garnishment law, as well as garnishment laws in at least 16 other states where checks can be levied without prior court hearing. These states include Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Isiand, Utah, Veriront, Washington and Wyoming. A total of 41 states have some form of garnishment law. According to the President's Committee on Consumer Protection, 3 with large concentrations of blacks and poor whites generally have the toughest garnishment laws; Virginia, Michigan, Ohio and California, for example. In hearings held by the Consumer Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs in 1967, it was pointed out that in a vast number of garnishment cases the debt is "a fraudulent one, saddled on a poor, ignorant person who is trapped in an easy credit nightmare in which he is charged double for something he could not pay for even if the proper price was called for..." Added to an impecunious debtor's troubles is the fact that in most instances he stands to lose his job because of garnishment. Recent studies have shown that 13 percent of American manufacturers fire workers even after one garnishment. According to a study done in Wisconsin, 41 percent of the em- ployees in a sample taken were warned cf dismissal after one garnish- ment and 11 percent were fired immediately. Only in a very small percentage of cases did employers try to help the workers. Legal Defense Fund Director-Counsel Jack Greenberg, who argued on behalf of Mrs. Sniadach, said the High Court's decision indicates that it intends to strike down those obsolete legal rules of consumer credit which victimize buyers and borrowers rather than serve them. Mr. Greenberg said the decision will void a quarter million pres- ently outstanding wage garnishments. Perhaps more important, he said, the decision demonstrates that the court is concerned with the rights of consumers. He said the Legal Defense Fund will therefore be bringing other test cases in the consumer field to the attention of the courts. -30-