Could a South Carolina sheriff give staff Christmas bonuses based on sick days or employment status?

Plain-English summary

In December 2003, South Carolina's Attorney General said an Anderson County sheriff's two proposed Christmas payments to employees were inappropriate. One amount would have varied with sick days used during the year; the other would have paid full-time and part-time employees different flat amounts. The AG treated both as bonuses for service already rendered where no legal or contractual payment obligation existed.

The opinion relied on an earlier reading of the state constitution's bar on extra compensation after service. It addressed these proposed payments, not compensation promised in advance under an enforceable obligation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Sheriffs and county payroll officials

The AG said changing the size of a year-end payment according to sick days did not avoid its character as extra compensation for past services. A flat Christmas amount for employees had the same problem under the facts described.

Common questions

Could the sheriff award a Christmas amount based on unused sick time?
The AG said no under the proposed arrangement, absent a legal or contractual obligation to make that payment.

Could the sheriff instead pay every worker a flat holiday amount?
No. The opinion rejected that alternative too, including the differing full-time and part-time amounts.

Did the opinion rule on compensation promised before work was performed?
No. Its reasoning concerned bonuses paid after service without a prior obligation.

Background and statutory framework

The county's employment attorney asked about two sheriff-employee Christmas gifts. The AG applied an earlier opinion on extra compensation to both proposed forms of payment.

Citations and references

The opinion discussed Article III, Section 30 of the South Carolina Constitution and an earlier AG opinion dated May 9, 2002.

Official title

Questioning whether the sheriff can give an “employee Christmas gift” equaling between zero and $400.00 based on the number of sick days the employee has used during the year.

Requester

Nancy Bloodgood, Esquire, Employment Attorney for County of Anderson

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-11-2003/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/03dec-11-Bloodgood.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTER.
ATI'ORNEY GENERAL

December 11, 2003

Nancy Bloodgood, Esquire
Employment Attorney for County of Anderson
P. 0. Box 993
Charleston, South Carolina 29402-0993
Dear Ms. Bloodgood:
In a letter to this office you questioned whether the sheriff can give an "employee Christmas gift" equaling between zero and $400.00 based on the number of sick days the employee has used during the year. Also, you asked whether the sheriff can give each full-time employee $400.00 as a Christmas bonus and part-time employees $200.00 as a Christmas gift.

A prior opinion of this office dated May 9, 2002 dealt with the question of whether a county official can provide bonuses to employees in her office as remuneration for additional duties performed which are not part of their job descriptions. Reference was made to Article Ill, Section 30 of the State Constitution which provides The General Assembly shall never grant extra compensation, fee or allowance to any public officer, agent, servant or contractor after service rendered, or contract made, nor authorize payment or part payment of any claim under any contract not authorized by law .... The opinion stated that even though the referenced constitutional provision prohibits only action by the General Assembly, this office has concluded that the provision also limits political subdivisions, such as counties, "at least in the powers delegated to them by the General Assembly." The opinion concludes that
... this office has repeatedly concluded that bonus payments (or such pay that amounts to bonus payments) are prohibited as being made after services have been rendered or a contract fulfilled ... Accordingly, it a county is not under any legal or contractual obligation to pay its employees bonuses, the payment of bonuses would be inappropriate. Consistent with such, payment under both scenarios referenced by you would be inappropriate.

J , ~~~

• //_ L - ING • POSTOFFJCE Box ll549 •
  ,l!//J,,

COWMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

• TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 •

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Ms. Bloodgood
Page2
December 11, 2003

If there are any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,

j

L

'

~u
,,

If

g

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General