Grimsley v. S.C. Law Enforcement Div.

• Decision Date: 23 December 2015
• Docket Number: Appellate Case No. 2014–001059.,No. 27598.,27598.
• Citation: 415 S.C. 33,780 S.E.2d 897
• Parties: Phillip D. GRIMSLEY, Sr. and Roger M. Jowers, on behalf of themselves and others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v. SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION and the State of South Carolina, Defendants, of whom South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is the Petitioner.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

415 S.C. 33

780 S.E.2d 897

Phillip D. GRIMSLEY, Sr. and Roger M. Jowers, on behalf of themselves and others Similarly Situated, Respondents,

v. SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION and the State of South Carolina, Defendants,of whom South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is the Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2014–001059.

No. 27598.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Sept. 23, 2015.

Decided Dec. 23, 2015.

William H. Davidson, II and Kenneth P. Woodington, both of Davidson & Lindemann, P.A., of Columbia, for petitioner.

A. Camden Lewis and Ariail E. King, both of Lewis, Babcock & Griffin, L.L.P., of Columbia; Richard A. Harpootlian, of Richard A. Harpootlian, P.A., of Columbia; John A. O'Leary, of O'Leary & Associates, P.A., of Columbia; and James Walter Fayssoux, Jr., of Fayssoux Law Firm, P.A., of Greenville, for respondents.

Justice KITTREDGE.

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion in Grimsley v. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (grimsLey ii ), 408 S.C. 38, 757 S.E.2D 542 (ct.apP.2014), which reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Petitioner South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED). We reverse.

Respondents are former SLED agents who retired and were rehired by then SLED Chief Robert Stewart for a period of four years pursuant to a rehire program formulated by Chief Stewart. At the conclusion of Respondents' service under the rehire program, they filed suit against SLED and the State under various theories, all premised on the allegation that SLED deducted from their salaries the amount of the employer's contribution to the retirement system. The State was granted dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP.¹ On appeal, taking the allegations of the Complaint as true, we reversed and remanded. Grimsley v. S.C. Law Enforcement Div. (Grimsley I ), 396 S.C. 276, 279, 283–86, 721 S.E.2d 423, 424, 427–28 (2012).

On remand and following discovery, the trial court granted SLED summary judgment, which the court of appeals reversed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we find the trial court properly granted summary judgment to SLED, for the record makes clear that Respondents were rehired at reduced salaries and the employer contributions to the retirement system were not deducted from those salaries, but were paid by SLED. As a result, we reverse the court of appeals and direct that judgment be entered for SLED.

I.

This case arises out of a dispute over a hiring program created by SLED involving participants in the Police Officers Retirement System (PORS). We now have the benefit of an extensive record following discovery, and the essential facts are not in dispute. In 2002, the General Assembly eliminated salary caps for so-called working retirees, that is, state employees who retired and then returned to work. This allowed state employees, including members of the PORS like Respondents, to retire, collect full retirement benefits, and then return to their former jobs at salaries that could have been, but were not required to be, the same as their pre-retirement salaries. Shortly after the salary cap was eliminated, Chief Stewart developed the program in question, informally called the Retirement/Rehire program (Program).

Chief Stewart created the Program, in part, because an existing program, the Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive (TERI) program, was not available for members of the PORS. Chief Stewart described the Program as benefiting all involved—SLED, its employees, and the people of South Carolina. SLED benefited because the Program allowed more experienced employees to remain in service after becoming eligible to retire, working alongside agents with less experience. To the extent employees were rehired at reduced salaries, SLED also benefited by saving money, thereby allowing the agency to avoid layoffs while maintaining services. The citizens and taxpayers of South Carolina benefited from SLED's ability to maintain a high level of service at a reduced cost. Finally, Program participants benefited by drawing retirement benefits while still working and earning a salary, albeit a reduced salary.²

To participate in the Program, employees had to retire, submit a request to be rehired, and if selected to be rehired, agree to a number of conditions. Chief Stewart cautioned employees considering the Program that they should not participate unless they were ready to immediately and permanently retire. Respondents Phillip Grimsley and Roger Jowers were longtime SLED employees who decided to apply to participate in the Program. Between April and August 2004,Respondents retired, requested to be rehired, and were rehired by SLED.

Respondents clearly understood the Program's conditions, which included a reduction in their salaries and a term of employment not to exceed four years. Respondents signed multiple forms confirming the details of the arrangement were just as SLED had asserted. One of those forms, a re-employment orientation form, stated that Respondents' salaries were being reduced "to cover the amount it will cost SLED to pay the employer portion of retirement." Chief Stewart said that he decided to reduce the salaries of Program participants by the amount of the employer retirement contribution to provide some degree of savings to taxpayers from rehiring retired agents. He also stated that using that percentage established a uniform reduction figure for working retirees' salaries. This uniform approach to determining Program participants' rehire salaries lessened the potential for complaints from the rehired agents and simplified the Program's administration.

After participating in the Program for the agreed-upon four years, Respondents received letters in 2008 thanking them for their service and informing them that their employment would be ending. During their service as rehired agents, Respondents never complained about their salaries or the issue of the employer retirement contribution.

A few months later, in December 2008, Respondents filed suit seeking recovery for alleged statutory and constitutional violations. Respondents' statutory claims were premised on alleged violations of section 9–11–90(4)(b) of the South Carolina Code, which requires employers, such as SLED, to "pay to the [retirement] system the employer contribution for active members prescribed by law with respect to any retired member engaged to perform services for the employer, regardless of whether the retired member is a full-time or part-time employee or a temporary or permanent employee." S.C.Code Ann. § 9–11–90(4)(b) (Supp.2014).

As noted, the trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss as to all of Respondents' claims. On appeal, we reversed based on the standard of review; accepting as true the allegation that SLED rehired Respondents at their former salaries and then deducted the employer retirement contribution from those salaries, Respondents had pled a viable claim. Grimsley I, 396 S.C. at 283–86, 721 S.E.2d at 427–28. After this Court issued its decision in Grimsley I and the parties engaged in discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. It is the trial court's ruling on those motions that led to the current appeal.³

In their motion, Respondents sought summary judgment on the ground that the Program required Respondents to pay the employer's retirement contribution to the state retirement system, in violation of section 9–11–90, the constitutional prohibition against takings, and constitutional due process requirements. Respondents argued that SLED violated the plain language of section 9–11–90, which requires employers to pay retirement contributions for working retirees in the same manner as non-retired employees, by deducting the employer contribution from their salaries.⁴ Respondents' constitutional claims relied in part on this Court's decision in Grimsley I, in which we held Respondents had a cognizable property interest in their salaries, unreduced by any amount required to be paid by their employer. See Grimsley I, 396 S.C. at 284–85, 721 S.E.2d at 427–28 (concluding that Respondents' Complaint alleged interference with a property interest rooted in state law and was sufficient to maintain a takings claim).

In support of its motion for summary judgment, SLED relied on the facts as revealed in discovery. More to the point, SLED contended it had conclusively established that the required employer retirement contribution was never deducted from Respondents' salaries but was, in fact, always paid by SLED. SLED further noted that Respondents retired unconditionally and agreed to be rehired at a reduced salary, and an employee who retires has no unconditional right to be rehired at all, much less at a particular salary. The trial court agreed, granting SLED's motion for summary judgment and denying Respondents' motion.

On appeal, the court of appeals reversed, finding there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether SLED rehired Respondents at their pre-retirement salaries and whether SLED deducted the employer contribution to the retirement system from those salaries. This Court granted SLED's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision.

II.

SLED argues the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in its favor because the undisputed facts establish that Respondents were rehired at new salaries and no employer retirement contribution was deducted from those salaries; therefore, SLED contends, it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. We agree.

A.

"An appellate court reviews the granting of summary judgment under the same standard applied by the trial court...." Quail Hill, L.L.C. v. Cnty. of Richland, 387 S.C. 223, 235, 692 S.E.2d 499, 505 (2010) (citing Brockbank v. Best Capital Corp., 341 S.C. 372, 379, 534 S.E.2d 688, 692 (2000) ).

"[A] trial court may grant a motion for summary judgment ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers...