Recent Employment Law Cases

RECENT EMPLOYMENT LAW CASES (Excluding ERISA)

In Wilson v. Phoenix, 513 F.3d 378 (4th Cir. 2008). Foster Law Firm Attorney Robert Hoskins, along with two other law firms, represented the plaintiff, Jimmy Wilson. Mr. Wilson asserted a cause of action against his former employer under the Americans With Disability Act (ADA). After a trial on the merits, the District Court ruled in Wilson’s favor on the ADA claim. (Click here to see the district court decision) The defendant appealed the verdict to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In a split decision, the majority upheld the district court ruling with Mr. Wilson on the ADA cause of action by way of a published decision (meaning the decision is binding precedent in this federal circuit). (Click here to view the Fourth Circuit’s decision)

Foster Law Firm Attorney Nancy Bloodgood represented the plaintiff in Thomas Francis O’Brien, Jr. v. South Carolina ORBIT, et. al., 380 S.C. 38, 668 S.E.2d 396 (2008). The suit was a “friendly” suit brought in the original jurisdiction of the South Carolina Supreme Court against a trust established by the South Carolina Municipal Association. The trust is referred to as “ORBIT” (Other Retirement Benefits Investment Fund). The City of Charleston was also a defendant and the purpose of the suit was to test the constitutionality of placing public retiree health insurance funds in equity securities. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled with the plaintiff that absent a change in the South Carolina constitution, as written, the subject investments were unconstitutional. The court held that the South Carolina constitution forbids political subdivisions from investing in equity securities.Subsequent to issuance of the decision, a referendum to amend the South Carolina constitution was placed on the ballot for state wide elections last November, but the amendment failed. So, for the time being, political subdivisions are still prohibited from investing retiree health insurance funds in equity funds. (Click here to see the O’Brien opinion.)

Foster Law Firm Attorney Robert Hoskins represented the plaintiff in Sherry Lazicki-Thomas v. South Carolina Budget and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems, 378 S. Ct. 72, 661 S.E.2d 374 (S.C. 2008). The case involved a claim under South Carolina Police Officers Retirement System. The case involved an oft recurring issue which is whether a system participant must be actually employed (meaning on the payroll as opposed to actively working) when his or her application for disability benefits is filed. In such a situation, the State took the position that the Retirement System was not required to consider the claim for disability retirement benefits because it was untimely.

The first case in which the firm represented a plaintiff to address the issue was Crooks v. South Carolina Budge and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems, 2005 SC ALJ LEXIS 563 (2005). In Crooks, the South Carolina Administrative Law Court ruled with the firm that the statute was ambiguous and that the words “in service” should be interpreted to apply to the date of disability. (Click here to see the Crooks opinion) Thereafter, for only the second time in its history, the South Carolina Administrative Law Court convened an en banc hearing in Anderson v. South Carolina Budget and Control Board, South Carolina Retirement Systems, 06-ALJ-30-0008-CC, and ruled with the state that the term “in service” was unambiguous and clearly referred to the date the application was filed. (Click here to see the Anderson en banc opinion) Based upon the Anderson en banc decision, the presiding Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Lazicki-Thomas case. The firm appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. The South Carolina Supreme Court, sua sponte (on its own initiative), took the case from the Court of Appeals to decide the issue once and for all. South Carolina Appellate Rules allow the State’s Supreme Court to take cases from the Court of Appeals when they involve questions of exceptional public importance. Foster Law Firm argued the case in March 2008 before the Court. The South Carolina Supreme Court issued its order agreeing with the Anderson en banc Administrative Law Court that the statute was unambiguous and that the words “in service” clearly referred to the date of the application as opposed to the date of disability. (To view the South Carolina Supreme Court’s published opinion, Click here.)