ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In the above captioned matter, Petitioner, South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, imposed a
$1000 penalty for each of 23 violations of S.C. Code Ann. § 41-13-20 (Supp. 2000), which prohibits "oppressive child
labor practices" as defined by S.C. Code Regs. 71-3106(d) (Supp. 2000). The penalties were imposed in accordance with
S.C. Code Ann. § 41-13-25 (Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Regs. 71-3111 (Supp. 2000). Respondent, Grand Prix Family
Thrill Park, then requested a contested case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. By a formal Notice of Hearing dated September 17, 2001, Respondent was provided notice that the hearing was
scheduled for November 27, 2001, but failed to appear. The Notice contained a warning that failure to appear at the
hearing could result in dismissal or other adverse rulings as deemed appropriate.
2. Respondent at no time contacted the court to request a continuance or to inform the court that it could not appear at the
hearing at the appointed place and time.
3. After the court and Petitioner waited fifteen minutes beyond the scheduled time of the hearing for Respondent to make
an appearance, Respondent still failed to make an appearance in person or by counsel, nor was Respondent or any
representative thereof found outside the courtroom.
4. Counsel for Petitioner made a Motion to Dismiss. In addition to its motion, Petitioner entered into evidence five
exhibits previously filed and served pursuant to ALJD Rule 26.
5. A preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent employed 23 individuals who were 14 or 15 years of age at the
time of the citation.
6. The court also finds by a preponderance of the evidence that these children were operating power-driven machinery
other than office machines and/or operating or serving as helpers on motor vehicles, specifically, amusement rides, go-carts and other vehicles.
7. The Respondent was assessed by Petitioner a penalty of $1,000 for each child so employed, for a total penalty of
$23,000.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. ALJD Rule 23 regarding default provides as follows:
The administrative law judge may dismiss a contested case or dispose of a contested case adverse to the
defaulting party. A default occurs when a party fails to plead or otherwise prosecute or defend, fails to
appear at a hearing without the proper consent of the judge or fails to comply with any interlocutory order
of the administrative law judge. Any non-defaulting party may move for an order dismissing the case or
terminating it adversely to the defaulting party.
2. By virtue of its request for a contested case, Respondent has an obligation to advance a position. South Carolina Dep't
of Revenue v. Noon's Party Shop, Inc., Docket No. 01-ALJ-17-0204-CC (S.C.A.L.J.D. Aug. 14, 2001). "There is a limit
beyond which the court should not allow a litigant to consume the time of the court . . . ." Georganne Apparel, Inc. v.
Todd, 303 S.C. 87, 92, 399 S.E.2d 16, 19 (Ct. App. 1990).
3. By its failure to appear, Respondent is deemed to have withdrawn or abandoned its challenge to the Department's action,
which thus remains intact and is now final. See Noon's Party Shop, Inc.; see also South Carolina Dep't of Revenue v.
Ruby W. Odom, Docket No. 01-ALJ-17-0773-CC (S.C.A.L.J.D. Mar. 25, 1998); South Carolina Dep't of Revenue v. Sun
K. Dukes, d/b/a Players Cafe, Docket No. 01-ALJ-17-0181-CC (S.C.A.L.J.D. Sept. 4, 1997).
4. Moreover, the exhibits presented by Petitioner establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) 23 named minors
were employed by Respondent Grand Prix Family Thrill Park, (b) the 23 named minor employees were 14 or 15 years old,
and (c) the 23 named minor employees were engaged in the operation or tending of power-driven machinery other than
office machines and/or motor vehicles, and thus each of the 23 named minors were employed in violation of S.C. Code
Ann. § 41-13-20 (Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Regs. 71-3106(d) (Supp. 2000)
5. The penalty of $1000 for each violation, for a total penalty of $23,000 is within the parameters set forth in S.C. Code
Ann. § 41-13-25 (Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Regs. 71-3111 (Supp. 2000).
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall pay the penalty of $23,000 to Respondent within 30 days of the date
of this order for violating S.C. Code Ann. § 41-13-20 (Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Regs. 71-3106(d) (Supp. 2000).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. Dukes Scott
Administrative Law Judge
November 29, 2001
|
