Eighth Circuit Rules Employer paid Disability Payments Constitute Earnings for Purposes of Wage Garnishment
1 min read
Oct 22, 2013
An employee was injured on the job and as a result could no longer work for her employer and began receiving payments under a disability insurance program paid for by the employer. Sometime after the employee began receiving disability payments, the employee was incarcerated and upon her release, was forced to pay restitution. The Internal Revenue Service sought to garnish these disability payments pursuant to her restitution sentence. The employee challenged this garnishment claiming that the disability payments constituted earnings under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (“Act”) and thus were subject to the limitations that the Act places on the amount of earnings subject to garnishment.
The district court held that the disability payments did not constitute earnings and thus could be fully garnished by the IRS. In a case of first impression by the federal appellate courts, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the holding of the district court by focusing on the character of the payments and determining whether the disability payments constituted “compensation paid or payable for personal services.“ In its analysis, the Eighth Circuit held the disability payments were earnings, as the payments served as wage substitutes payable from the employee’s former employer because of past services she provided to such employer.
Based on the holding of the Eighth Circuit, employers should ensure garnishments governed under the Act include disability payments in the calculation of earnings to ensure the employer does not garnish an impermissible amount of the employee’s “earnings.” Employers should watch for further guidance regarding garnishments of disability payments as this is a case of first impression.
If you would like more information about United States v. Ashcraft, No. 12–2449 (8th Cir., October 09, 2013).
Topics
Featured Insights

Press Release
Aug 7, 2026
Daniel McGrath Re-Elected Senior Director of the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel

Insights for Insurers Alert
Aug 7, 2026
California Supreme Court Clarifies Pleading Standards for Excess Policy Claims

Press Release
Aug 6, 2026
Charles Townsend Named a Best Mentor Finalist in the 2026 ALM Texas Legal Awards

Webinar
Aug 5, 2026
April Toy Moderates HNBA Webinar on AI in the Practice of Law

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Aug 5, 2026
2026 AI Compliance: Upcoming Laws Every Organization Needs to Know

Press Release
July 21, 2026 | Updated on August 4, 2026
Three Hinshaw Attorneys Named to the 2026 National Black Lawyers’ Top 40 Under 40 List

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology
