Taghivand v. Rite Aid Corp.
411 S.C. 240
S.C.2015Background
- Taghivand was a Rite Aid store manager in North Charleston who observed suspicious conduct and, after a cashier reported that a customer’s bag later contained unpaid items, instructed the cashier to call the police.
- A police officer searched the customer’s bag, found only dirty clothes, and Taghivand confirmed the items; Taghivand was terminated that same day and told the report prompted his firing.
- Taghivand sued in federal court for wrongful termination under South Carolina’s public policy exception to at-will employment; defendants moved to dismiss.
- The district court found South Carolina law unclear on whether reporting suspected crime to police is protected under the public policy exception and certified a question to the South Carolina Supreme Court.
- The certified question asked whether an at-will employee may bring a tort claim for retaliatory discharge when (1) the employee reasonably suspects shoplifting, (2) reports it in good faith to law enforcement, and (3) is fired in retaliation.
- The Supreme Court answered: no—reporting suspected crime, standing alone, does not satisfy South Carolina’s public policy exception to at-will employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reporting a suspected crime to police creates a public policy basis for a tort claim for retaliatory discharge | Taghivand: statutes and common law show a public policy favoring reporting crime (e.g., §16-9-340, obstruction law, Victim & Witness Act) and the criminal justice system relies on citizen reporting | Defendants: South Carolina’s strong at-will presumption and absence of a clear legislative declaration protect employers; statutes cited do not clearly create a cause of action for reporters | Held: No — absent an explicit legislative statement, reporting suspected crime does not establish the public policy exception to at-will employment |
Key Cases Cited
- Prescott v. Farmers Tel. Coop., 335 S.C. 330 (1999) (reaffirming strong South Carolina policy favoring at-will employment)
- Ludwig v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 287 S.C. 219 (1985) (recognizing public policy exception where discharge violates clear public policy)
- Culler v. Blue Ridge Elec. Coop., Inc., 309 S.C. 243 (1992) (termination that is itself illegal may invoke public policy exception)
- Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (1930) (courts should exercise caution when recognizing public policy not grounded in statute or constitution)
- Palmateer v. Int’l Harvester Co., 421 N.E.2d 876 (Ill. 1981) (majority recognized citizen reporting of crime as public policy; noted and distinguished by this court)
- Wholey v. Sears Roebuck, 803 A.2d 482 (Md. 2002) (declined to create tort based solely on general public interest where legislature had not extended protection)