Vol. 7, No. 2, Pg. 29. What is the Status of Employment-At-Will in South Carolina Today?.

• Author: By Samuel L. Wilkins

South Carolina Lawyer

1995.

Vol. 7, No. 2, Pg. 29.

What is the Status of Employment-At-Will in South Carolina Today?

29What is the Status of Employment-At-Will in South Carolina Today?By Samuel L. WilkinsThe South Carolina Supreme Court formally recognized the employment-at-will doctrine in 1936. Shealy v. Fowler, 182 S.C. 81, 188 S.E. 499 (1936). According to that doctrine, the employment relationship may be terminated by either party, at any time, for any reason. Id.

Exceptions Created to the Employment-At-Will Doctrine

In 1985 in Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 287 S.C. 219, 337 S.E.2d 213 (1985), the South Carolina Supreme Court joined an increasing number of courts that have questioned the continued viability of the employment-at-will doctrine. Relying on either a contract or tort theory, some jurisdictions have recognized a public policy exception to the doctrine. Also, some courts, by interpreting employment contracts more broadly or extending traditional tort remedies to the employment situation, have recognized an obligation on the part of an employer not to terminate an employee where the employer's policies or employee manuals or handbooks may have restricted the employer's traditional right of termination-at-will.

In Ludwick, the employer fired an employee for honoring the subpoena of a state administrative board. The employee sued. The South Carolina Supreme Court recognized a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and allowed the employee to recover damages. Affirmatively stating that "[t]he doctrine of termination-at-will remains the law of this state," Ludwick, supra at 224, 337 S.E.2d at 216, the South Carolina Supreme Court nevertheless created South Carolina's first exception to the at-will doctrine.

Two years later, the South Carolina Supreme Court allowed an employee to rebut the at-will presumption and hold the employer liable for breach of contract. Small v. Springs Industries, Inc., 292 S.C. 481, 357 S.E.2d 452 (1987). Kathy Small had worked at Springs Industries for five years when the company issued a handbook and bulletin to its employees.

That handbook and bulletin detailed the company's procedure for terminating an employee. Those documents provided for a four-step disciplinary process that consisted of a verbal reprimand, a written warning, a final written warning and discharge. Also, Small's supervisor orally assured the employees that the four-step process would be uniformly applied. Nevertheless, Springs Industries discharged Small after only one written warning.

Small sued the company for breach of contract. The trial judge allowed the jury to determine whether the handbook, the bulletin and...