Littler Mendelson, P.C. • February 10, 2020
Last year, the City of Columbia, South Carolina enacted an ordinance that appeared to require substantial changes to private employers’ criminal record and salary history inquiry practices. At the time of enactment, the ordinance defined a covered “employer” as the “City, private employers and government contracts; and any person regularly employing five or more persons, any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly; or any person undertaking for compensation to procure employees or opportunities for employment.” There was a disconnect, however, between this plain-text definition of “employer” and various other portions of the ordinance and public statements about the ordinance that otherwise suggested the City had actually not intended to cover private employers.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • October 03, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina passed an ordinance effective August 6, 2019,1 limiting employers’ use of criminal background checks and banning employers from inquiring about salary history on job applications. South Carolina’s capital city is the latest locality to pass such a measure, following several others that passed similar ordinances within the past year.2
Fisher Phillips • August 04, 2019
The South Carolina Supreme Court just ruled that the state will no longer recognize common-law marriages. This decision will have a direct impact on South Carolina workplace law, requiring many employers to adjust their employment policies and practices.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • July 29, 2019
On July 24, 2019, South Carolina joined the ranks of Alabama, Pennsylvania, and others in abolishing future recognition of common law marriages in the state. The state will continue to recognize all common law marriages in effect before this date, but they will be subject to a higher standard of proof. On and after July 25, 2019, all South Carolina marriages will require the issuance of a marriage license.
Nexsen Pruet • April 16, 2019
South Carolina Supreme Court Employs Direct Benefits Test
Nexsen Pruet • March 27, 2019
Can a drug testing lab be sued for negligence in South Carolina if it mishandles an employee’s drug test? Yes, according to a recent decision issued by the South Carolina Supreme Court with potential ramifications for drug testing labs, employers, and employees who test positive for drugs. Shaw v. Psychemedics Corp., Opinion No. 27869 (S.C. March 20, 2019).
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • March 24, 2019
On March 21, 2019, the South Carolina Supreme Court answered a certified question that will impact third-party vendors under contract with South Carolina employers to conduct employee drug testing. In Shaw v. Psychemedics Corporation, the court held that drug-testing companies conducting tests on South Carolina employees owe a duty of care to those employees. Under Shaw, an employee may sue a drug testing company for negligence based on the company’s contractual relationship with the employer.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 24, 2019
The South Carolina Supreme Court held that laboratories who perform workplace drug tests on behalf of employers owe a duty of care to the individuals who are tested and may be sued for negligence for failing to properly and accurately perform the drug tests and report the results. Shaw v. Psychemedics Corp., App. Case No. 2017-002538 (S.C. March 20, 2019).
Nexsen Pruet • March 06, 2019
Joining a nationwide trend, a bipartisan group of South Carolina legislators recently introduced bills in both houses of the General Assembly aimed at allowing applicants and employees to sue employers for unequal pay.
Nexsen Pruet • February 19, 2019
In South Carolina, as in most jurisdictions, unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful. See South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (the “Act”), S.C. Code Ann. §39-5-10, et seq. In order to be actionable, an act must be unfair or deceptive, and must have an impact upon the public interest. Impact on public interest may be established if the act or practice has the potential for repetition. Potential for repetition may be demonstrated by showing the same kind of action previously occurred, making it likely it will continue to occur without deterrence, or by showing a company’s procedures create the potential for repetition of the unfair and deceptive act. While myriad cases have addressed, interpreted and applied the Act, few have as succinctly dealt with whether acts incapable of repetition may be said to have potential for repetition as the recent case of Turner v. Kellett, 2019 WL 455101 (February 6, 2019).