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.
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
|