Andrew Pampu v. Erin Wingo
2022-001332
S.C. Ct. App.Jun 11, 2025Background
- The litigation stems from an October 2015 incident at a Clemson University fraternity party where Andrew Pampu and Erin Wingo, both intoxicated, engaged in sexual intercourse.
- Clemson's administrative hearing board found Wingo was incapacitated and Pampu "should have known," resulting in Pampu's suspension.
- Pampu did not seek judicial review of Clemson's decision, but later settled a federal lawsuit against Clemson, leaving the board's findings in place.
- Pampu then brought a state court suit for defamation and civil conspiracy against Wingo, David Wingo, and Colin Gahagan, claiming the defendants made false statements about the incident.
- The jury ruled for Pampu on defamation and civil conspiracy, awarding large damages, but the trial court later granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on civil conspiracy.
- Defendants appealed the denial of JNOV on defamation, arguing collateral estoppel barred re-litigation of the truth of their statements; Pampu cross-appealed the civil conspiracy JNOV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence for civil conspiracy? | Pampu: There was a conspiracy to have him removed via false statements. | Defendants: No proof of unlawful act, breach, or damages. | JNOV affirmed—no evidence of unlawful act or damages. |
| Did collateral estoppel bar Pampu's defamation claim? | Pampu: He could challenge the truth of the statements outside Title IX process. | Defendants: Pampu is bound by board’s finding Wingo could not consent, making statements true. | JNOV required—collateral estoppel applies; statements were true. |
| Did Clemson’s disciplinary process qualify as a state agency action? | Pampu: Clemson isn’t covered by the state APA as an agency. | Defendants: Clemson is a state-supported university and its process is a contested case. | Court: Clemson's process falls under the APA as agency action. |
| Was Pampu given a full and fair opportunity in administrative proceedings? | Pampu: OCES failures and settlement mean findings shouldn’t bind him. | Defendants: Pampu could have appealed, but chose not to; settlement left findings intact. | Court: Pampu had opportunity, fairness requires preclusive effect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curcio v. Caterpillar, Inc., 585 S.E.2d 272 (S.C. 2003) (JNOV standard: verdict upheld unless no reasonable evidence supports jury's findings)
- Paradis v. Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist., 861 S.E.2d 774 (S.C. 2021) (Elements and intent requirement for civil conspiracy)
- McBride v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 698 S.E.2d 845 (S.C. Ct. App. 2010) (Elements and truth defense in defamation)
- Earle v. Aycock, 279 S.E.2d 614 (S.C. 1981) (Collateral estoppel applies when no judicial review is sought after agency decision)
- Ross v. Med. Univ. of S.C., 453 S.E.2d 880 (S.C. 1994) (State-supported universities operate as state agencies under APA)