Paycard Use Comes With Convenience, Regulation

17 November 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

For some employers, paycards have become a convenient and cost-effective alternate method to pay their workers, and for employees to have fast and easy access to their wages. Even direct deposit, for all the administrative ease it provides, is often less attractive than paycards for employees whose banks have a mandatory deposit holding period before wages can be accessed. As a consequence, the move to paying employees with a paycard system is gaining traction, and appears to be growing in popularity among employers and employees alike.

A paycard system functions similarly to a bank debit card, except it does not require an employee to have a personal bank account from which he or she draws funds. Instead, an employer funds an account linked to an employee’s specifically issued paycard, and on every payday the funds paid to the employee are immediately accessible for access through any ATM terminal or debit card pay station. This gives employees the freedom to take as cash all their wages at once, or to spend them in smaller amounts, such as when they buy groceries at a market. The companies that provide these paycard benefits often offer less expensive administrative fees to employers than more traditional payroll services, and many employees appear to like paycards because there is no need for them to have a bank account or use a paycheck cashing service. Paycards can also be convenient to employees because of the immediate access to funds without any bank holding period and the ability of employees to access their pay at any of thousands of locations. However, paycards have not come without some concern on the employee side, as the paycard service may charge fees to the paycard user based on the way he or she uses the card. For example, while a paycard administrator may allow an employee the ability to withdraw the entire balance of his or her recent paycheck without a fee, or allow a specified number of debit transactions without a fee, subsequent transactions carry a small fee taken out of the employee’s balance.

The growing use of paycards has also come with new state laws regulating the way in which employers can permissibly use paycards and the terms of use employees are subjected to if they elect to have their wages paid by paycard. At least 27 states have now enacted a variety of laws that address how paycards may be used by employers — a number that is likely to climb. The patchwork of regulations, however, make it important for any employer — and especially multistate employers — looking to move to wage payment by paycard to ensure they review their own obligations under the law, as well as their agreements with paycard vendors to ensure the vendor itself is not causing the employer to inadvertently violate the law. Indeed, though it would seem reasonable for an employer to expect that part of what it pays for with a paycard administrator is assurance that the specific paycard program complies with all applicable laws, in this climate of rampant wage and hour class action lawsuits, employers are nevertheless wise to conduct their own due diligence on any potential paycard program before implementing it and thereafter auditing it as the law in this area develops.

No two laws are exactly the same, and there is no guarantee that any one state agency that regulates payment of wages within its borders will act similarly to equivalent agencies in other states. Employers who are either currently using or considering paycards to pay employees should consult with legal counsel to ensure their practices, and their vendors’ terms of use, are in sync with the most recent legal and regulatory developments. The following items are just a sampling of what employers should look for in their own states:

  1. Does the law require any written notice to employees about the paycard system?
  2. Can employers mandate that employees enroll in the paycard system, or must it be voluntary enrolment?
  3. What alternative methods of payment must employers provide employees?
  4. Must the paycard vendor allow employees access to all wages, or can they require a minimum balance be maintained?
  5. How often may employees access their wages without a fee?
  6. Do paycard vendors have a right to charge a “declined transaction” fee, like many bank debit cards do?
  7. What disclosures must be made to employees who enroll in a paycard system, and whose obligation is it to provide the disclosures?
  8. Who must provide balance information, and how often must it be provided?
  9. What type of overdraft regulations exist for paycard users?
  10.  Are there notice requirements that must be provided to terminated employees?
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ