South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Amy M. Jackson vs. School District of Greenville County

AGENCY:
School District of Greenville County

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Amy M. Jackson

Respondents:
School District of Greenville County
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
07-ALJ-30-0639-CC

APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner:
pro se

For the Respondent:
Thomas K. Barlow, Esquire
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (“ALC” or “Court”) pursuant to a request for a contested case hearing filed by Amy M. Jackson (“Jackson”) on December 27, 2007. In her request for a contested case hearing, Jackson seeks relief from the December 1, 2007 decision of Thomas Hindman, Hearing Officer for the Respondent School District of Greenville County (the “School District”). The School District determined that Jackson was responsible for debt, in the amount of $15,839.00, submitted through the Setoff Debt Collection Act.

After timely notice to the parties, a hearing in this matter was held on April 1, 2008, at the offices of the ALC in Columbia, South Carolina. All the parties appeared at the hearing. Evidence was introduced and testimony was given. After carefully considering all the testimony and evidence presented during the hearing, I find that the School District’s determination, as subsequently modified, is correct and the School District may proceed under the Setoff Debt Collection Act in recouping the amount due by Jackson.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having observed the witnesses and reviewed the exhibits presented at the hearing, as well as those submitted subsequent to the hearing, and closely passed upon their credibility, and having taken into consideration the burden of persuasion by the parties, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact:

1. Jackson obtained an initial teacher’s certificate from the South Carolina State Board of Education in the summer of 2001. The certificate was valid for three (3) years. When Jackson obtained her teacher’s certificate, she knew it was valid for three years and that it would expire in the summer of 2004.

2. After receiving her teacher’s certificate, Jackson moved to Alaska and was employed as a substitute and full-time teacher. Upon returning from Alaska, Jackson began substituting in the Blue Ridge/Marietta area in 2003 until she could obtain a permanent, full-time teaching position at a local school.

3. Once hired by the School District in 2003, Jackson was paid at the daily rate set for substitute teachers who possessed a valid South Carolina teacher’s certificate. At the time of Jackson’s employment with the School District, substitute teachers who possessed a valid South Carolina teacher’s certificate were entitled to pay at a daily rate of $145.50 (“certified pay”). Substitute teachers lacking a valid South Carolina teacher’s certificate were entitled to pay at a daily rate of $66.50 (“non-certified pay”).

4. During the fall of 2003, Jackson called the Human Resources department (“HR department”) at the School District to inquire about the procedure for renewing her certificate. Based upon her conversations with individuals in the HR department, Jackson enrolled and completed nine (9) hours of graduate level courses at Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina. All of the courses were within the program geared towards a Masters of Education degree.

5. After completing the courses at Furman University, Jackson submitted her transcript to the School District. She contacted the HR department and inquired as to the length of time it would be before she received her renewed certificate.

6. Jackson did not receive the renewed certificate in the fall of 2004; therefore, she contacted the HR department again to inquire about her certificate. Jackson spoke with another individual in the HR department. Based upon her conversation, Jackson believed she needed to complete the ADEPT program, administered by the South Carolina Department of Education. The program is an evaluation/observation program that new teachers in the state participate in to obtain a teacher’s certificate. However, the program is limited to full-time teachers, and as such, Jackson was not eligible to participate in the program because she was employed as a substitute teacher. Jackson continued to substitute and receive certified pay. She believed she could not renew her certificate until she obtained a full-time teaching position.

7. In May 2006, Jackson applied for and received a position to teach summer school at Blue Ridge Middle School. On the application, Jackson indicated that she was certified, i.e., she possessed a valid South Carolina teacher’s certificate. Subsequently, Jackson received a letter from the School District indicating that she did not have a valid teacher’s certificate, and as such, her pay would be reduced to non-certified pay.

8. Jackson phoned the HR department to determine what needed to be done so that her teacher’s certificate would be renewed. Jackson did not directly speak to anyone at the School District at that time; rather, she left several messages with different staff members. Because she did not receive an immediate response from the School District, Jackson went to the School District’s administrative office and spoke with Rebecca Fox-Lykens (“Ms. Fox-Lykens”). Based upon her conversation with Ms. Fox-Lykens, Jackson completed the necessary paperwork to have her teacher’s certificate renewed. The renewed certificate became valid in June 2006.

9. After meeting with Ms. Fox-Lykens, Jackson received a letter from the School District indicating that she owed $15,839.58 for overpayment of wages received. The amount represents the gross wages of overpayment Jackson received from June 2004 through June 2006, the time period when she did not possess a valid South Carolina teacher’s certificate.

10. James McCutcheon (“McCutcheon”) is employed by the School District as the Director of Disbursement Services in the Financial Department. His duties include the administrative and managerial aspects of payroll by the School District. McCutcheon authored the letter sent to Jackson which indicated that she would be responsible for the overpayment of wages by the School District. McCutcheon acknowledges that the School District “incorrectly coded” Jackson’s salary amount from June 2004 through June 2006; however, McCutcheon contends that it was an administrative error, and most importantly, it is the employee’s responsibility to maintain the teacher’s certificate. Further, McCutcheon contends that the state Board of Education – not the School District – approves and issues teacher certificates to eligible individuals in the state.

11. At the request of the Court, Jackson and the School District submitted additional documentation to the Court subsequent to the hearing, upon notice to the other party, regarding the total amount of the debt sought by the School District. Upon further review and calculation, the School District stipulates that Jackson is only responsible for the overpayment of gross wages minus the actual deductions from Jackson’s wages during the same period, $6,165.42, for a total of $9,674.16.[1]

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:

1. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2007) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (Supp. 2007) grant jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Court to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.

2. Pursuant to the Setoff Debt Collection Act, a state agency may collect a delinquent debt by submitting a request to the South Carolina Department of Revenue to deduct the debt from the debtor’s South Carolina income tax refund until it is paid in full. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 12-56-60.

3. The claimant agency must notify the debtor in writing of its intent to set off the debt. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-56-62. A debtor who wishes to protest the debt may then file a written protest with the claimant agency within thirty (30) days of the notice of intention to set off as prescribed in S.C. Code Ann. § 12-56-63. The claimant agency must then appoint a hearing officer to hear the protest and issue a decision. A debtor may seek relief from the hearing officer’s decision by filing a request for a contested case hearing with the ALC. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-56-65 (Supp. 2006).

In this case, the School District submitted a request to the Department of Revenue to deduct from Jackson’s income tax refund, the amount of overpayment of gross wages owed by Jackson to the School District. The Setoff Debt Collection Act itself is silent as to how the debt is to be calculated in the context of a wage overpayment. However, the School District has stipulated that the correct amount due from Jackson in this matter is $9,674.16, which represents the “net” amount of wages received by Jackson.

4. Nothing in this case shows any error of procedure in the School District’s submittal of its claim to the Department of Revenue for set-off against Jackson’s income tax refund. Rather, the argument presented by Jackson is that no debt is due since the School District had an obligation to ensure that she held a valid teacher’s certificate before it paid her the applicable certified pay rate. Further, she asserts the School District is “estopped” from attempting to recoup the overpayment because the School District knew she was not certified from June 2004 through June 2006, and she was repeatedly given incorrect advice from the School District regarding the process of renewing her teacher’s certificate. I disagree. “The party asserting estoppel bears the burden of establishing all its elements.” Estes v. Roper Temp. Servs., 304 S.C. 120, 122, 403 S.E.2d 157, 158 (Ct. App.1991). “A party asserting estoppel against the government must prove ‘(1) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question, (2) justifiable reliance upon the government’s conduct, and (3) a prejudicial change in position.’ Absent even one element, estoppel will not lie against a government entity.” Morgan v. S.C. Budget and Control Bd., ___ S.C. ___, 659 S.E.2d 263, ___ (2008) (quoting Grant v. City of Folly Beach, 346 S.C. 74, 80, 551 S.E.2d 229, 232 (2001)). Jackson’s estoppel argument does not satisfy the first two elements.

At the time her initial certificate was issued, Jackson was aware that it was only valid for a period of three years. While Jackson contends that she was not aware of the process of renewing her teacher’s certificate and that several staff members in the HR department gave her incorrect information regarding the renewal process, Jackson acknowledged during the hearing that the State Board of Education administers the certification program. Furthermore, she did not attempt to contact the State Board – as she did with the School District – regarding the process of renewing her teacher’s certificate.

Because of this misinformation, Jackson completed several graduate courses at Furman University in order to renew her teacher’s certificate. When she completed the courses and submitted the transcript to the School District, Jackson believed that she had taken the necessary steps, based upon her conversations with the School District, to renew her certificate. Even though Jackson did not receive the renewal certificate in the fall of 2004, she believed the School District was responsible for ensuring that she had a valid certificate before paying her at the certified rate, especially given the fact that she had previously informed them of the expiration of the certificate. Yet, during the hearing Jackson acknowledged that it was “her responsibility” to ensure that her teacher’s certificate remains valid and that the State Board of Education administers the certification program, not the School District. Maintaining a teacher’s certificate is clearly the responsibility of the teacher, and Jackson was well aware of this responsibility. Simply stated, Jackson knew her certificate would expire in June of 2004, and she did not take the appropriate steps to ensure that it remained valid. Moreover, Jackson was aware that she was receiving pay at the rate accorded to teachers currently possessing a valid teacher’s certificate although she did not possess a current and valid teacher’s certificate. Jackson clearly received an overpayment of wages in the amount of $9,674.16 to which she was not entitled, and as such, she is responsible for repayment of the difference in wages to the School District.

ORDER

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jackson’s challenge to the setoff of her state income tax refund as requested by the School District is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Jackson is responsible for the claim submitted by the School District through the Setoff Debt Collection Act in the amount of $9,674.16.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________

Marvin F. Kittrell

Chief Administrative Law Judge

May 8, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina



[1] The School District further states that “[i]t appears that [Jackson] was unjustly enriched only to the extent of her net, take-home pay at the certified teacher rate, as she would have derived no direct and immediate benefit from the amount deducted from her check for state and federal taxes, Medicare, and Social Security.”


~/pdf/070639.pdf
PDF

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2025 South Carolina Administrative Law Court