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).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 15, 2019
In Owens v. Crabtree, Opinion No. 5616 (January 16, 2019), the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that a company’s termination of an employee for using company devices, on company time, to oppose a local building project that the company had a financial stake in was valid and did not violate public policy. The holding (1) illustrates the benefits of a written company policy regarding the use (including personal use) of company devices/technology and (2) provides an example of a valid termination that did not violate South Carolina public policy.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 08, 2019
Bipartisan bills introduced in both houses of the South Carolina General Assembly propose allowing workers and job applicants to bring suit against employers for pay inequality and wage secrecy.
Ogletree Deakins • January 25, 2019
South Carolina is not known as a hotbed of legislative action protecting employee rights, let alone creating new ones. However, several bills are pending in the state legislature that, if passed, would impact South Carolina employers by instituting changes to employment applications, the minimum wage, and credit checks, as well as expanding protections against discrimination.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 28, 2018
An amendment to South Carolina law allows individuals to have certain criminal records expunged following a successful court petition. This means that, among other things, a prospective employee would not be required to disclose on an employment application criminal record information that has been expunged. The new law, Act No. 254, becomes effective December 27, 2018.