Torrence v. SCDC
5829
| S.C. Ct. App. | Jun 2, 2021Background
- Torrence, serving life without parole, worked in the Prison Industries Program (PIP) at Evans CI from 1997–2004; paid training wages ($0.25/$0.75) then $5.25/hour and $7.86 OT.
- Torrence sought higher pay under the Prevailing Wage Statute and the option to designate recipients for 10% of wages held in escrow (S.C. Code §24-3-40).
- He filed a step-one grievance (May 21, 2007) after the South Carolina Supreme Court rejected a private suit but recognized administrative grievance rights; DOC denied the grievance as untimely in 2011 and denied on step two in 2012.
- The ALC (after bifurcating issues) ruled Torrence’s grievance was timely (policy GA-01.12 ¶13.9 exception for policies/procedures and applied equitable tolling), held DOC violated the Prevailing Wage Statute, calculated mean-average prevailing wages for 1997–1999 (finding $8.82–$9.92), remanded remaining years to DOC, and held life prisoners may elect immediate distribution of escrowed wages to designated persons/entities.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the ALC: (1) grievance timeliness under ¶13.9, (2) ALC’s method for calculating the prevailing wage (mean average using ESC/DEW OES/OCC data), and (3) ALC’s construction of §24-3-40 allowing designation for immediate distribution for life-sentenced inmates.
Issues
| Issue | Torrence's Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of grievance (¶13.1 vs ¶13.9) | Grievance challenges enduring pay policy/statutory scheme; falls under ¶13.9 exception for policies/procedures | Grievance was an "incident" and thus untimely under ¶13.1 fifteen-day rule | Timely: wage grievances are challenges to policies/procedures under ¶13.9; fifteen-day rule inapplicable; ALC affirmed |
| Equitable tolling of filing deadline | Earlier class action and the futility of filing before Wicker/Woodcourt tolled limitations; filed promptly after notice | DOC said it did nothing to hinder discovery; equitable tolling unnecessary | Court did not need to decide tolling because ¶13.9 disposition was dispositive; ALC had applied tolling but appellate resolution rests on ¶13.9 |
| Prevailing wage calculation (which statute / method) | Prevailing wage must be determined from state agency data and reflects mean average for occupation (use ESC/DEW OES/OCC codes) | DOC urged reliance on §24-3-410(B)(7) / comparable-wage concept and argued $5.25 complied | Held §24-3-430(D) controls wage rate; prevailing wage = mean average wage for occupation using ESC/DEW data; ALC calculation for 1997–1999 affirmed and remand for 2000–2004 affirmed |
| Distribution of escrowed wages (§24-3-40) | §24-3-40(B)(2) gives life prisoners option: include in estate or immediately distribute to designated persons/entities; harmonize with (A)(5) escrow protection | DOC read statute to allow distribution to designees only upon inmate's death; its interpretation entitled to deference | Held ALC correctly harmonized (A)(5) and (B)(2): life-sentenced inmates may elect immediate distribution to designated persons/entities; DOC’s contrary reading arbitrary/capricious |
Key Cases Cited
- Torrence v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 373 S.C. 586 (recognizing inmates lack private action and must use internal grievance process)
- Wicker v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 360 S.C. 421 (holding PIP trainees cannot be paid less than prevailing wage)
- Adkins v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 360 S.C. 413 (related guidance on PIP/statutory scheme)
- Ackerman v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 415 S.C. 412 (Ct. App.) (holding wage grievances challenge policies/procedures and are exempt from ¶13.1 fifteen-day rule)
- S.C. Dep't of Corr. v. Cartrette, 387 S.C. 640 (Ct. App.) (interpreting Article 3 obligations to pay inmate workers parity with non-inmate peers)
- Bruning v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Env't Control, 418 S.C. 537 (Ct. App.) (statutory interpretation principle: specific provisions prevail over general ones)