Could a creditor garnish a Connecticut state employee’s expense reimbursement as wages?

Plain-English summary

In February 1997, Connecticut’s AG advised the state comptroller that non-reportable reimbursements for employee expenses were not subject to wage execution. The question concerned money repaid to state employees for expenses they had incurred, not wages for their work.

The garnishment statute allowed a judgment creditor to levy on an employee’s “earnings.” Its definition tied earnings to debts arising from personal services, such as wages, salary, commissions and bonuses. The AG read the list as covering compensation of the same kind. An expense reimbursement instead repaid an employee’s disbursement or advance. It was a debt owed by the employer, but not a payment for the employee’s services. The opinion therefore separated the reimbursement from garnishable earnings under the wage execution statute.

Payroll officials at the time

The opinion said the described non-reportable expense payments were outside the wage execution process because they were not earnings for services.

Employees and judgment creditors at the time

The holding distinguished expense repayment from salary and similar compensation. It addressed wage execution, not every possible method of collecting a judgment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did an employee’s expense reimbursement count as wages for garnishment?
A: No. The AG said reimbursement of money spent for work was different from pay for personal services.

Q: Did it matter that the employer still owed the employee money?
A: The debt alone did not make it earnings; the statutory definition required compensation for services.

Background and statutory framework

The comptroller asked how wage executions under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-361a applied to expense reimbursements. The AG used the definition of “earnings” in § 52-350a and the statutory examples of compensation to answer.

Citations and references

Statutes: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-350a; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-361a(d).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/1997-formal-opinions/honorable-nancy-wyman-state-of-connecticut-1997003-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of-connecticut

Original opinion text

Honorable Nancy Wyman, State of Connecticut, 1997-003 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

February 3, 1997

Honorable Nancy Wyman

Comptroller

State of Connecticut

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06106-1775

Dear Ms.Wyman:

You ask whether payment of reimbursement expenses incurred by state employees is subject to wage garnishment under Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-361a. The answer is no.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-361a deals with wage executions. "If a judgment debtor fails to comply with an installment payment order, the judgment creditor may apply to the court for a wage execution." Id. The statute refers to "earnings" upon which the wage execution shall be levied.

(d) The levying officer shall levy on all earnings which are due or become due to the judgment debtor to the extent specified in the wage execution, until the judgment is satisfied, or the execution is modified or set aside, by serving the employer with two copies of the wage execution, the required notice of rights and the claim forms.. . .

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-361a(d) (emphasis added).

The definitional section governing the terms of the garnishment statute is found in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-350a. "Earnings" is defined as "any debt accruing by reason of personal services, including any compensation payable by an employer to an employee for such personal services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus or otherwise." Id.

Illustrative of the purpose of the wage garnishment statute is the inclusion of "wages" in the definition for "earnings." Id. "Wages" is used to define earnings along with "salary, commission, bonus or otherwise." Application of the rule of statutory construction known as "ejusdem generis" is appropriate here. "Ejusdem generis" stands for the proposition that where general terms are followed by specific terms in a statute, the general terms will be construed to embrace things of the same general kind or character as those specifically enumerated. State v. Russell, 218 Conn. 273, 278, 588 A.2d 1376 (1991). In § 52-350a the general term, "earnings" is followed by four examples: "wages, salary, commission, bonus or otherwise." The term "otherwise," under the canon of "ejusdem generis," immediately following an enumerated listing, means that the word "otherwise" will generally be read as "other such like." See Chicago v. Bethlehem Healing Temple Church, 93 Ill. App.2d 303, 236 N.E.2d 357 (1968). Reimbursable expenses are not like wages, salary, commissions or bonus. Therefore, "earnings" is properly limited to compensation for services rendered, reflected by use of the terms "wages, salary, commission, bonus or otherwise."

Since non-reportable expense reimbursements represent a debt owed by the employer related to an employee disbursement or advance, as opposed to remuneration for services rendered constituting earnings, the former cannot be subject to the wage garnishment statute §52-361a.

I trust this fully answers your question.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Thomas P. Clifford, III

Assistant Attorney General

RB/TPC/fsd