A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Are Debt Collectors Calling Your Employer?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Aggressive Debt Collectors know that having your co-workers or employer find out that you are  being perused by debt collectors, can be very embarrassing and that you might be inclined to take any means necessary to get them paid faster.

It is legal for a debt collector to contact your employer if they have a judgment against you in order to set up a garnishment. That is all they can do, however. This is not an opportunity for the collector to discuss your matter in great detail. Simply, they need to find out where to send the garnishment notice.

A collector can also contact any 3rd party, which may include an employer. But, only in order to seek your location information, and in doing so, must specifically state just that – that they are looking for location information – and nothing more. Furthermore, they can only contact that third-party one time. So if a collector is contacting an employer, and that collector does not have a judgment against you, and that collector does not just ask for where you are located, then that collector may be in violation of the  Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, FDCPA.

This being said, a collector’s ability to contact your employer is extremely limited. Many of the contacts do violate the FDCPA. If you are dealing with a harassing collector who is contacting your employer, contact my office, The Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman at (877) 449-8898

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.