Ackerman v. South Carolina Department of Corrections
415 S.C. 412
| S.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Inmates (196 current/former) who worked in SCDC’s Prison Industries project at Lieber challenged SCDC’s denial of grievances seeking the prevailing wage under S.C. Code § 24-3-430(D).
- SCDC had a contract with Williams Technologies, Inc. (WTI) setting inmate pay at $4.00/hr (with $.35/hr base to inmates) and treating inmates as SCDC employees for contract purposes.
- Inmates filed Step 1 grievances in late September 2004 and appealed to Step 2; SCDC denied relief citing both the merits and Policy GA-01.12’s 15-day Step 1 filing deadline (paragraph 13.1).
- Policy GA-01.12 exempts grievances concerning “policies/procedures” from the 15-day time limit (paragraph 13.9); paragraph 7.1 lists grievable “Department policies/procedures, directives, or conditions that directly affect an inmate.”
- The ALC upheld SCDC’s denials as untimely; the court of appeals reviewed whether the 15-day deadline applied and reversed, holding the wage disputes were challenges to SCDC policy/procedure and thus exempt from the deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 15-day filing deadline in Policy GA-01.12 applied to inmates’ wage grievances | The grievances challenged SCDC policy/procedure (contractual pay rates/statutory wage policy) not a discrete "incident," so the 15-day limit does not apply | SCDC characterized the wage complaints as incident grievances subject to the 15-day filing requirement and denied them as untimely | Court held the grievances challenged enduring policies/procedures (contract/pay scheme) and are exempt from the 15-day limit; ALC decision reversed and remanded for merits review |
| Whether SCDC’s classification of the grievances as incidents was permissible | Williams/Inmates argued classifying the enduring contract pay rate as an "incident" was arbitrary given policy/procedure definition and paragraph 7.1 | SCDC maintained its interpretation that these were incident grievances | Court found SCDC’s characterization arbitrary and capricious and deferred to textual reading that policies/procedures include contract pay terms; agency interpretation rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelscape, LLC v. S.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 391 S.C. 89, 705 S.E.2d 28 (2011) (identical words/phrases in statute should have same meaning)
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., 551 U.S. 224 (2007) (statutory construction principle on uniform meaning of words)
- Murphy v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 396 S.C. 633, 723 S.E.2d 191 (2012) (regulations interpreted using rules of statutory construction)
- Broadhurst v. City of Myrtle Beach Election Comm’n, 342 S.C. 373, 537 S.E.2d 543 (2000) (words given plain and ordinary meaning)
- Kiawah Dev. Partners, II v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 411 S.C. 16, 766 S.E.2d 707 (2014) (deference to agency interpretations unless arbitrary or manifestly contrary)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (framework for judicial deference to agency interpretations)
- Home Health Serv., Inc. v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 312 S.C. 324, 440 S.E.2d 375 (1994) (agency actions that establish binding norms are treated like rules/regulations)