SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This wage payment matter is before me on a Motion to Stay Proceedings pending the outcome of a related action in circuit court between Respondent and its former employee, Seth Laws ("Laws"). Respondent has been cited by Petitioner for violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 40-10-40(D) (Supp. 1997), for failure to pay earned commissions to Laws. Petitioner seeks a $75 fine against Respondent. Respondent contends that it was permitted by state law to withhold Laws' commissions due to his breach of duty of loyalty to Respondent. Respondent's pending circuit court action against Laws includes causes of action for breach of common law duty of loyalty, tortious interference with contract, conversion, claim and delivery and breach of a non-competition agreement.

I find that a stay of the proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge Division pending the outcome of the circuit court action is appropriate under the surrounding circumstances. An employee's breach of duty of loyalty may be a defense to a citation for violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 40-10-40(D) (Supp. 1997). See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 328 S.C. 312, 491 S.E.2d 577 (Ct. App. 1997)(employee's breach of duty of loyalty constitutes a forfeiture of wages due under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act).⁽¹⁾ Discovery on Respondent's causes of action against Laws is now pending in circuit court. While the outcome of the circuit court action may not necessarily be binding on Petitioner,⁽²⁾ much of the evidence admitted in that action may be admissible in the proceedings before this tribunal, thereby saving judicial resources as well as the economic resources of the parties. Further, the circuit court action is due to be tried in approximately three to four months. Therefore, the resulting delay in the administrative proceedings will not prejudice the parties.

Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Stay Proceedings is GRANTED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge

June 29, 1998

Columbia, South Carolina

1. I take judicial notice of the South Carolina Supreme Court's unpublished Order of April 9, 1998, which grants certiorari on several questions in Futch. In that Order, however, the Court denied certiorari on the question of an employee's breach of duty of loyalty constituting a forfeiture of wages due under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

2. See South Carolina Property & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 304 S.C. 210, 403 S.E.2d 625 (1991)(whether determination of issue in prior action is binding in a subsequent action, under doctrine of collateral estoppel, depends on whether the party adversely affected had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action or whether other circumstances justify awarding him opportunity to relitigate issue).