Grimsley v. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
396 S.C. 276
| S.C. | 2012Background
- Appellants are rehired former SLED employees challenging an internal retirement program.
- Program required retirement from SLED, a temporary separation, then rehiring for up to 48 months.
- Appellants signed a form reducing salary by 13.6% to cover employer retirement costs.
- They allege this deduction violates 9-11-90 and constitutes unlawful takings.
- Trial court dismissed for failure to exhaust Retirement Act remedies; SLED not a party at issue.
- South Carolina Supreme Court reverses and remands, holding exhaustion not required and takings claim viable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Retirement Act exhaustion applies | Appellants not subject to Retirement Act remedies. | Exhaustion required before suit. | Exhaustion not required; act inapplicable to dispute. |
| Whether 9-11-90 creates a cognizable property interest | Appellants have a state-law property interest in salary deduction. | Salary level not guaranteed; no property interest. | Appellants have a cognizable property interest enough to state a claim. |
| Whether takings claim is viable | Deduction effects an unlawful taking of salary percentage. | No property interest or improper taking under the statute. | Takings claim survives dismissal; properly framed under state law. |
| Proper interpretation of 9-11-90(4)(b) | Term 'shall pay' creates enforceable employer contribution arrangement. | Statute does not mandate salary-level guarantees. | Statute provides basis for a property interest; interpretation supports relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. Hardee, 371 S.C. 495, 640 S.E.2d 457 (S.C. 2007) (plain-language statutory interpretation governs unless ambiguous)
- Worsley Co. v. Town of Mount Pleasant, 339 S.C. 51, 528 S.E.2d 657 (S.C. 2000) (due process requires cognizable property interest rooted in state law)
- Snipes v. McAndrew, 280 S.C. 320, 313 S.E.2d 294 (S.C. 1984) (property interests defined by state-law rules and expectations)
- Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 98 S. Ct. 948, 55 L. Ed. 2d 124 (U.S. 1978) (state-law-created property interests trigger due process)
- Rydde v. Morris, 381 S.C. 643, 675 S.E.2d 431 (S.C. 2009) (court construes complaints in nonmovant's favor for relief)
- State v. Jacobs, 393 S.C. 584, 713 S.E.2d 621 (S.C. 2011) (plain meaning governs statutory interpretation absent ambiguity)