Bell v. South Carolina Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 11 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 27114.,27114. |
| Citation | 724 S.E.2d 675,279 Ed. Law Rep. 466,33 IER Cases 1249,397 S.C. 320 |
| Parties | James “Cal” BELL, Othella Bernard, Katherina Bower, Linda M.W. Bratton, Ann T. Bridges, Richard M. Cobb, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rance C. Cobb, Jeannie B. Croxton, Bernetha L. Culbreath, William K. Dreyer, Jacqueline D. Farr, Ruth Fritts, Nancy Glenn, Etta Jane Jones, Geneva M. Martin, Mary H. McCabe, Beverly McClanahan, Max D. Randolph, Carolyn McIver Smith, Maggie G. Williams, and Paula Woodlief, Appellants, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Palmetto Unified School District No. 1, Respondents. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
W. Allen Nickles, III, of Columbia, for Appellants.
Lake E. Summers and Katherine Phillips, of Malone, Thompson, Summers & Ott, of Columbia, for Respondents.
Appellants, who are current and former certified educators employed by the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) in the Palmetto Unified School District (“PUSD”), collectively appeal the Administrative Law Court's (“ALC's”) order affirming the State Employee Grievance Committee's decision denying Appellants' grievances regarding the SCDC's Reduction–in–Force (“RIF”),1 which was implemented on June 1, 2003.
On appeal, Appellants contend the ALC erred in failing to enforce: (1) the plain language of the RIF policy; (2) the controlling legislation applicable to the PUSD and the RIF policy; (3) Appellants' constitutional rights with respect to employment; and (4) Appellants' rights as “covered employees” with respect to the RIF policy. Based on these alleged errors, Appellants assert they are entitled to reinstatement to employment as well as back pay and benefits. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
In 1981, the South Carolina Legislature established a “special statewide unified school district” within the SCDC known as the Palmetto Unified School District No. 1.2 The PUSD was designed to “enhance the quality and scope” of inmate education with a goal of reintegrating offenders into the community .3 The PUSD operates nine high schools, which are located in correctional institutions throughout the state, serving students between the ages of 17 and 21 years old. In addition, the PUSD offers inmates older than 21 the opportunity to receive adult education if they wish to pursue their GED while incarcerated. The PUSD also oversees a vocational program that offers 53 vocational and career technology classes designed to furnish inmates with basic technical skills to aid them in securing gainful employment upon their release.
As a sanctioned school district, the PUSD must meet standards set by the State Board of Education.4 The PUSD has its own superintendent and school board 5 that are responsible for operating the PUSD “under the supervision of the State Department of Corrections.” 6 By statute, “[t]he superintendent of the district [PUSD] and all other educational personnel shall be employed, supervised, and terminated according to the South Carolina Department of Corrections' personnel policies and procedures.” 7
In January 2003, Jon Ozmint was appointed as the Executive Director of the SCDC. Faced with budget cuts and an ongoing budget deficit, Ozmint presented Reduction–in–Force policy ADM–11.05 dated March 14, 2003, to the State Office of Human Resources (OHR) for its approval.8 The policy outlined the procedures to be utilized in effectuating the RIF plan and the employees' respective rights.
As part of the plan, the SCDC was divided into “competitive areas,” 9 which were delineated by eleven circular regions throughout the state that included “entire groups of institutions and divisions within a reasonable geographic area to accommodate the realistic opportunity for staff relocation, ... recall and reinstatement.” Under the RIF policy, a “covered state employee” 10 whose position was eliminated as a result of the RIF was permitted to “bump” 11 another “employee with the lowest RIF Service Date in the same job classification and pay band with the same or lower pay level.” A “covered employee,” however, could only exercise this right within his or her designated competitive area.12
Additionally, the RIF policy provided for “Recall and Reinstatement Rights of Employees.” 13 Specifically, the policy provided in pertinent part:
When a vacancy occurs in an employee's competitive area which is (1) in the same job class, pay band, pay level or lower, and functionally similar as the position held prior to the lay off, downward bumping, or reassignment and (2) within a reasonable geographic distance (30 mile radius) of the work location of the employee, then the eligible employee will be offered the vacancy provided s/he meets the minimum training and experience qualifications.In his letter addressed to the Director of the OHR, Ozmint stated that he had made the decision to eliminate “148 non-security” positions from headquarters management and administrative support staff, non-essential inmate support programs, and certified education and support staff.
On March 28, 2003, the OHR approved the RIF plan after determining the plan was “procedurally correct.” The OHR, however, clarified that its approval did not “include the determination of the geographic locations in the competitive areas, competitive classes, competitive class series, bumping rights, the positions to be eliminated, or any exceptions included in the plan, since these are solely the responsibility of SCDC management.”
The SCDC notified its employees of the RIF on April 1, 2003. On June 1, 2003, the day the RIF plan went into effect, 148 employment positions were eliminated from the SCDC. The PUSD lost 84 positions, which included Appellants and represented 56.75% of the RIF.
On July 16, 2003, Ozmint notified SCDC employees of a “Retirement Opportunity” that had been established to further reduce costs. Under this plan, the SCDC would permit employees to retire from the agency between August 1 and October 1, 2003. Once retired, the employee was required to “experience a 15 calendar-day break in service” and then could be rehired in their present position but in a temporary capacity. A temporary employee 14 did not receive benefits other than “retiree benefits” and was paid for hours actually worked.
Appellants, who were certified educators with the PUSD and “covered employees,” timely filed grievances with the SCDC regarding their separation from employment as a consequence of the RIF.15 The SCDC denied each of the grievances without a hearing.
Subsequently, each of the Appellants appealed the SCDC's denial of their grievances to the State Human Resources Director. After Appellants received the final, unfavorable decision of the State Human Resources Director, Appellants filed a consolidated complaint and petition for judicial review in the circuit court.
After several procedural hearings and rulings involving discovery, a circuit court judge found that material issues of fact existed regarding Appellants' contention that the SCDC inconsistently or improperly applied its RIF policy and plan in 2003. As a result, the judge remanded the matter to the OHR for disposition by hearing before the State Employee Grievance Committee (“Committee”).
Following ten days of hearings, the Committee issued its final decision denying Appellants' request for relief and upholding the June 1, 2003 RIF plan as implemented by the SCDC. The Committee found there was “insufficient evidence to support Appellants' allegations that the RIF policy or plan was improperly or inconsistently implemented.” Additionally, the Committee concluded there was “no credible evidence presented that the elimination of educator positions in the PUSD was motivated by a desire for retaliation for an earlier lawsuit 16 that resulted in the increase of educators' salaries.” Instead, the Committee found the RIF plan was developed to “maximize[ ] savings while retaining as many employees as possible in essential areas.” The Committee noted that “[t]he education program was one area where significant cost-saving opportunities existed” as opposed to such areas as “security, housing, clothing, food, and healthcare” where further budgetary cuts could not be “tolerated.”
In reaching its conclusion, the Committee found the SCDC “followed proper protocol and did not violate any policies, procedures, or statutes.” Specifically, the Committee found that: (1) educators were not unfairly targeted for termination or terminated based on a belief by other employees or members of management that educators were “overpaid” but, rather, as the result of “cost-saving principles” due to the high salaries of most educators as compared to other personnel; (2) the development of the competitive areas did not violate the RIF policy as the manner in which these areas are designated is left to the discretion of the Executive Director of the SCDC and neither state law nor the RIF policy required the PUSD to be treated as a single, competitive area to afford agency-wide bumping rights; (3) the SCDC management was not obligated by statute or policy to consult with the PUSD School Board or obtain its approval before implementing the RIF as the PUSD is not a separate entity but exists as a unit under the purview of the SCDC; (4) the retirement opportunity offered by the SCDC after the RIF was designed to further reduce operating costs by permitting employees to retire from their full-time positions and return to their positions in a temporary capacity, a position for which recall rights were inapplicable; and (5) the hiring of temporary employees before the RIF and the retention of certain temporary employees after the RIF did not violate the approved RIF policy as these positions were less costly than full-time positions given that the positions were hourly and without benefits.
Appellants appealed the Committee's final decision to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Green
... ... GREEN, Appellant. No. 27108. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard Feb. 23, 2012.Decided April 4, ... ...
-
Whitfield v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., Appellate Case No. 2011-187286
...the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record" or was affected by an error of law); Bell v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 397 S.C. 320, 329, 724 S.E.2d 675, 680 (2012) (applying subsection 1-23-610(B) in an employee grievance appeal); Risher v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. C......
-
Whitfield v. South Carolina Department of Social Services
... ... affected by an error of law); Bell v. S.C. Dep't of ... Corr., 397 S.C. 320, 329, 724 S.E.2d 675, 680 (2012) ... (applying ... ...