Jackson v. S.C. Dep't of Emp't

• Court: South Carolina Administrative Law Court Decisions
• Writing for the Court: The Honorable Crystal M. Rookard South Carolina Administrative Law Judge.
• Docket Number: 25-ALJ-22-0424-AP
• Decision Date: 15 April 2026
• Citation: Jackson v. S.C. Dep't of Emp't, 25-ALJ-22-0424-AP (Apr 15, 2026)
• Parties: Tanasha K. Jackson, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce and Walgreens Pharmacy Services, Respondent(s).

1

Tanasha K. Jackson, Appellant, v. South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce and Walgreens Pharmacy Services, Respondent(s).

No. 25-ALJ-22-0424-AP

South Carolina Administrative Law Court Decisions

April 15, 2026

ORDER

The Honorable Crystal M. Rookard South Carolina Administrative Law Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter is before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court) pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed by Tanasha K. Jackson (Appellant). Appellant challenges the final determination issued by the Appellate Panel at the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce (Department or Respondent), in which the Appellate Panel affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal to dismiss Appellant's claim for unemployment benefits as untimely.

The final agency determination was issued on November 24, 2025. On December 29, 2025, this Court received Appellant's request for appeal; however, this notice was not in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure for the Administrative Law Court (SCALCR) as it did not contain a copy of the decision that gave rise to the request. Subsequently, on December 30, 2025, the ALC Clerk of Court issued a memorandum to Appellant, informing her that she had submitted a noncompliant request for appeal and explained the deficiencies. On January 13, 2026, this Court received a second request for appeal that, once again, did not contain a copy of the decision that gave rise to the request. A second memorandum was issued on January 13, 2026, informing Appellant that she had submitted a noncompliant request for appeal and explained the deficiencies. Appellant did not respond to the memorandum within ten days as instructed and consequently her case was returned as unprocessed on February 11, 2026. Thereafter, Appellant filed a completed Notice of Appeal. On February 27, 2026, the Court issued a Notice of Assignment for this matter to the undersigned. On March 26 2026, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss (Motion) requesting that this case be dismissed pursuant to Rule 33 SCALCR and section 41-35-750 of the South Carolina Code (2021). Respondent maintains Appellant did not timely file and serve the Notice of Appeal and thus failed to properly invoke this Court's appellate jurisdiction. As of the date of this Order, Appellant has not filed a response to the Motion.^[1]

DISCUSSION

Rule 33, SCALCR states "[i]n appeals from decisions of the Department of Employment and Workforce (DEW), the notice of appeal must be filed and served within thirty (30) days of the date of mailing of the decision of the Department of Employment and Workforce Appellate Panel." See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(1) (Supp. 2025) ("Proceedings for review are instituted by serving and filing notice of appeal . . . within thirty days after the final decision of the agency . . ."). The appeal from the Department's Appellate Panel must be filed within thirty days from the mailing, not receipt of the Department's decision. See S.C. Code Ann. § 41-35-750 (2021) ("Within thirty days from the date of mailing the department's decision, a party to the proceeding whose benefit rights or whose employer account may be affected by the department's decision may initiate an action in the administrative law court against the department for the review of its decision, in which action every other party to the proceeding before the department must be made a defendant."). The timely filing and service of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. Hill v. S.C Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 389 S.C. 1 21, 698 S.E.2d 612, 623 (2010) ("The service of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and the time for service may not be extended …."). Without timely service of a notice of appeal, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case and must dismiss the appeal. Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9,14-15, 602 S.E.2d 772, 775 (2004) ("[I]f a party misses the deadline, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal and has no authority or discretion to 'rescue' the delinquent party by extending or ignoring the deadline for service of the notice."); see also Allison v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 394 S.C. 185, 189, 714 S.E.2d 547, 550 (2011) ("an appellate body may not extend the time to appeal").

In this case, the final agency decision was mailed on November 24 2025; therefore, Appellant had until December 29, 2025, to file and serve the Notice of Appeal.^[2] Appellant did not file her completed appeal with the Court until sometime after February 11, 2026. Additionally, the Department indicates Appellant failed to serve the Notice of Appeal upon the Department. This assertion is corroborated by an affidavit of the Office Manager for the Department. The Proof of Service on the Notice of Appeal served upon the Court confirms Appellant listed an incorrect address for the Department. Appellant did not respond to Respondent's Motion nor present any argument to show that service was properly completed in a timely manner.^[3] This Court has an obligation to carefully examine jurisdictional questions such as presented in this case. See State v. Johnston, 327 S.C. 435, 438, 489 S.E.2d 228, 230 (Ct. App. 1997), rev'd on other grounds, 333 S.C. 459, 510 S.E.2d 423 (1999) (holding that "it is the duty of the court to ensure that it renders no decision in a matter when it has no authority to act"). Further, the ALC is precluded from extending the time for filing an appeal and this Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter. Thus, Respondent's Motion should be granted. There is evidence before the Court that Appellant failed to timely file and serve the Notice of Appeal and importantly, there is no contradictory evidence of this assertion. Consequently, because Appellant failed to timely file and serve the Notice of Appeal as required by statute and the SCALCR cited above, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See Rule 38,...