Burris v. Mahaney

• Decision Date: 03 May 1989
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 2-88-0002.
• Parties: Shelia BURRIS v. Wayne MAHANEY, Thomas Mabry, Thomas Mabry and Associates, Inc., and Theo Spivey Nursing Home.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

716 F. Supp. 1051

Shelia BURRIS v. Wayne MAHANEY, Thomas Mabry, Thomas Mabry and Associates, Inc., and Theo Spivey Nursing Home.

Civ. A. No. 2-88-0002.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Northeastern Division.

May 3, 1989.

Bill Bush, Richard King, Rural Legal Services of Tenn. Inc., Cookeville, Tenn., for Shelia Burris.

C. Arnold Cameron, Cookeville, Tenn., for Mahaney.

James H. Reneau, Reneau & Reneau, Celina, Tenn., for Mabry and Mabry & Assoc.

MEMORANDUM

MORTON, Senior District Judge.

Ostensibly an attempt to vindicate constitutional rights through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this matter constitutes little more than a fight for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court does not intend to disparage the serious nature of financial hardship, but the entire cause of action arises out of a comedy of errors. The comedy of errors in turn results from a simple, blissful ignorance which now appears less than blissful, since the plaintiff charges that the errors reached constitutional proportions. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the defendants deprived her of fourteenth amendment due process rights when her wages were garnished. Legislative action having mooted the claim for injunctive relief, the plaintiff seeks only damages. In accordance with the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court denies the claim and enters judgment in favor of all the defendants, i.e., Thomas Mabry, Thomas Mabry and Associates, Inc., Theo Spivey Nursing Home, and Wayne Mahaney in his official capacity as Sheriff of Jackson County, Tennessee.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The story begins with a medical doctor by the name of Clarence L. Jones, Jr. Although not a party to this suit, Dr. Jones set the chain of events in motion by requesting an execution to be issued to garnish the plaintiff's wages. Much earlier, in 1985, Dr. Jones had obtained a judgment against plaintiff Shelia Burris in the General Sessions Court for Putnam County, Tennessee. The judgment was for the amount of an unpaid medical bill, $280, plus court costs. The plaintiff then apparently forgot all about the debt until Dr. Jones instituted this garnishment action.

The execution requested by Dr. Jones was issued by the Putnam County General Sessions Court Clerk and forwarded to the Jackson County General Sessions Court Clerk. It was at this point that the parade of errors began.

The Jackson County Court Clerk dutifully filled out the garnishment notice, completely unaware that Tennessee law required the following notice to be attached:

NOTICE

TO THE EMPLOYER: YOU ARE REQUIRED UNDER T.C.A. § 26-2-216 TO FURNISH THIS NOTICE TO THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR UPON RECEIPT THEREOF.

TO THE DEBTOR: Your earnings have been subjected to the lien of a garnishment which has been served upon your employer. You have the right to apply to the court for an order suspending further garnishments by the same creditor upon such terms as the court may approve. The court clerk shall provide you with necessary forms in making such application or you may wish to seek counsel of a lawyer.

Likewise, the Clerk hadn't the foggiest notion that the federal constitution might have something to say about what notice must accompany the garnishment.

The same was true at the Jackson County Sheriff's Department. The garnishment document was picked up at the Clerk's office as a part of the normal routine. Then, on January 21, 1987, Deputy Sheriff Clifton Long dutifully delivered the document absent the above-mentioned notice to the plaintiff's employer, the Theo Spivey Nursing Home. Defendant Thomas Mabry, administrator of the nursing home, accepted the document on its behalf. Deputy Long then dutifully returned a signed copy of the document, never dreaming anything might be wrong with the service. In fact, no one in the Sheriff's Department had even heard of Tenn.Code Ann. § 26-2-216, nor was anyone aware that some additional notice might be necessary in order to satisfy constitutional requirements.

Completely oblivious to Tennessee statutory requirements or to possible fourteenth amendment requirements, the employer then naturally failed to supply the plaintiff with the notice that the sheriff failed to supply to the employer. The employer did, however, show the plaintiff the same document that the employer received. Among other things, this document stated that "the judgment debtor has a right to apply to the court for an order staying further garnishment proceedings and allowing him to pay the judgment in installments." The document also provided the formula for computing the maximum amount of wages which could be garnished. Thus, if the plaintiff had read the document, she would have known of a general right to contest the garnishment in a judicial proceeding. She would have also known that there were certain limits to the amount of her wages which could be garnished. Unfortunately, the plaintiff added an error of her own to the errors of the others. Although given an opportunity to read the document, she did not bother to give it much more than a glance, thereby voluntarily remaining blind to whatever notice was available to her. Upon the advice of her employer, however, she and her husband did go to see a general sessions court judge about the garnishment. Subsequently, they also spoke to an attorney about getting the garnishment stopped, but apparently no other action was taken until after the plaintiff quit her job approximately a month and a half later.

Meanwhile, the actual task of computing the garnishment deduction was left to Kathleen Graves, the administrator's daughter as well as bookkeeper for the nursing home. It was not an easy task for Ms. Graves, and she was not very thrilled about having to bother with the garnishment. Nevertheless, after a few requests by the plaintiff, Graves finally calculated an amount of $84 for the bimonthly pay period ending January 31, 1987. Upon so informing the plaintiff, the plaintiff responded that she could not afford that much. A discussion ensued. Graves finally suggested $50 per paycheck, and the plaintiff agreed. In accordance with this agreement, Graves then deducted $50 from each of the four paychecks the plaintiff received during the remainder of her tenure at the nursing home.

The plaintiff's gross pay for the period ending January 31, 1987, was $409.94. Withholding tax and FICA deductions reduced the amount to $374.64. Of this amount, up to $89.62 could be garnished under federal law. State law being slightly more favorable to judgment debtors, only $84.20 could be garnished under the applicable Tennessee statute. However, since only $50 was deducted from this paycheck, the statutory limits were obviously not reached, and no claim exists for excessive garnishment of the paycheck for the period ending January 31.

Gross and net pay for the period ending February 15 was $318.06 and $233.16, respectively. The deduction of $50 was again below the federal statutory limit, but it exceeded the $47.54 state statutory limit by $2.46.

The excess was much worse in the third period, ending February 28. Gross pay was $267.75 and net was $236.39. Thus, under federal law the maximum amount that could be withheld was $13.23, and under state law it was only $7.81; yet the $50 deduction was still imposed, resulting in an excessive federal garnishment of $36.77 and an excessive state garnishment of $42.19.

Finally, the plaintiff's resignation resulted in such a small paycheck for the period of March 15 that neither federal nor state law allowed any garnishment. Nevertheless, $50 was again deducted.

Meanwhile, shortly before the first deductions were made but after the garnishment notice had been served, another nursing home employee quit. This employee, Betty Tayse, had been one of the three laundry employees, and thus the nursing home needed additional laundry help. Tommy Mabry, who was the son of the administrator as well as being the plaintiff's supervisor, subsequently approached the plaintiff with the idea of working some extra hours in the laundry in order to help out with the labor shortage. The plaintiff agreed, although her understanding at the time was that it would only last a few days.

In reality, the plaintiff's "changed working conditions" lasted from that time in late January until she left the job in early March. Before this arrangement, the plaintiff basically worked a shift from 7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. Although she had been hired as part-time help, she had actually been essentially working full time on this shift. Upon her agreement to help out with the laundry labor shortage, she was sometimes assigned to a 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. shift. Under the first day of the agreement, January 28, 1987, she actually worked a double shift, beginning work at 7:00 a.m. and staying until 9:00 p.m. at the request of Supervisor Tommy Mabry. She was, however, allowed to run home between shifts in order to tell her husband that she would be working the double shift. She agreed to work the double shift because she wanted to help out and because she wanted the extra hours. The nursing home requested the double shift because it needed extra help after losing an employee. The pending garnishment of the plaintiff's wages was in no way the motivation behind the defendant's request that the plaintiff work the extra hours.

The very next day after this first double shift, the plaintiff had to be at work again by 7:00 a.m. Three days later, on February 1, the plaintiff again worked a double shift. This time, however, she was not required to come in to work the next day. During the remainder of February, she apparently worked the 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. shift on seven days and the 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. shift on eight days. On two occasions, she was required to come in at 7:00 a.m. after working until 9:00 p.m. the night before. Furthermore, she apparently worked two evening shifts during her brief service in March.

The plaintiff clearly...