Barron v. Labor Finders of SC
393 S.C. 609
| S.C. | 2011Background
- Barron, an at-will employee, alleged wrongful termination in violation of public policy after unpaid commissions were discovered
- Respondent Labor Finders admitted an oversight caused nonpayment of commissions from a second Charleston office opened in 2004
- Petitioner signed a 2004 at-will/straight-commission agreement providing 3% commissions payable within ninety days of invoice
- Petitioner was terminated the day after she raised concerns about unpaid commissions and a check exceeding owed amount was later issued
- Court granted summary judgment to Labor Finders on all claims; Court of Appeals affirmed
- Supreme Court affirmed as modified, addressing the scope of the public policy wrongful-termination exception and related authorities
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of public policy exception to at-will termination | Barron argues broader application beyond two traditional scenarios | Labor Finders contends the exception is limited to requiring illegal acts or criminal-law violations | Public policy exception broader than prior narrow view; affirmed as modified |
| Reliance on Evans v. Taylor Made Sandwich Co. | Barron relies on Evans to permit wrongful-termination claim for retaliatory wage complaints | Labor Finders argues Evans is not controlling after revision of scope | Evans overruled to extent it suggested jury determines public policy; no statutory remedy under Act implicated here; summary judgment affirmed |
| Effect of lack of Act violation on public-policy claim | Barron claimed retaliation for wage concerns violated public policy despite no Act violation | Labor Finders maintained no Act-implicated retaliation evidence | No evidence petitioner filed or intended to file a wage claim; no wrongful-termination claim under public policy established; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 287 S.C. 219 (1985) (public policy exception for retaliatory termination)
- Lawson v. S.C. Dep't of Corrections, 340 S.C. 346 (2000) (public policy scope beyond strict two scenarios; causation not limited to criminal-law violation)
- Garner v. Morrison Knudsen Corp., 318 S.C. 223 (1995) (public policy exception not limited where earlier cases lacked record development)
- Keiger v. Citgo, Coastal Petroleum, Inc., 326 S.C. 369 (Ct.App.1997) (public policy questions limited by procedural posture in earlier cases)
- Dockins v. Ingles Markets, Inc., 306 S.C. 496 (1992) (no preclusion of public-policy claim due to a statutory remedy elsewhere)
- Epps v. Clarendon County, 304 S.C. 424 (1991) (no preclusion where statutory remedy exists but does not cover wrongful termination)
- Evans v. Taylor Made Sandwich Co., 337 S.C. 95 (Ct.App.1999) (held wrongful-termination public policy claim possible; later overruled to limit juror’s role in questions of public policy)
- Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 389 S.C. 299 (2010) (at-will employment presumed; public policy exception exists distinct from contract)