Were blind licensed vendors in South Carolina’s Commission for the Blind program employees of the Commission?

Short answer The AG’s short 2013 letter pointed to a South Carolina Court of Appeals footnote describing blind licensed vendors as self-employed and not Commission employees. The letter gave no broader employment-status analysis.
State
South Carolina
Opinion
2013-october-2-2013-1
Issued
October 2, 2013
Issued by
Office of the South Carolina Attorney General
Requested by
James M. Kirby, Commissioner, SC Commission for the Blind

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2013. Ask about yours and see what current South Carolina law means for your facts, with citations you can check.

Disclaimer: This is an official South Carolina Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed South Carolina attorney for advice on your specific situation.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original AG opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The South Carolina Commission for the Blind asked about the employment status of blind licensed vendors in its program. The Attorney General's one-page response identified the federal and state laws under which the program operated, then quoted a footnote from a South Carolina Court of Appeals decision: blind licensed vendors “are self-employed and are not considered employees of the Commission.” The letter did not analyze any separate benefit, tax or workplace question.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. 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.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG describe blind licensed vendors as Commission employees? A: No. The letter repeated a court footnote stating that vendors in the program were self-employed and were not considered Commission employees.

Q: Did the letter decide whether vendors qualified for a particular employee benefit? A: No. It addressed employment status only through the quoted footnote and did not discuss any specific benefit.

Background and statutory framework

The Commissioner identified the Randolph-Sheppard Act and South Carolina's blind-vendor program statute as the program's legal setting. The AG's response rested on a footnote in a state appellate decision, without further analysis.

Citations and references

The letter cites the Randolph-Sheppard Act and a footnote in a South Carolina Court of Appeals decision. The linked PDF is authoritative for the citation.

Official title

Regarding the employment status of blind licensed vendors in the South Carolina Commission for the Blind program.

Requester

James M. Kirby, Commissioner, SC Commission for the Blind

Source

Original opinion text

ALAN WlLSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

October 2, 2013

James M. Kirby, Comm issioner
South Carolina Commission for the Blind
PO Box2467
Columbia, SC 29202
Dear Commissioner Kirby:
This Office received your request for an opinion regarding the employment status of blind licensed vendors in the South Carolina Comm ission for t he Blind program. You say that the program operates under federal law pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. § I 07 et seq. and under the South Carol ina Code of Laws, S.C. Code Ann. § 43-26-10 et seq. According to a footnote in Craft v . S.C. Comm ission for the Blind, 385 S.C. 560, 563 , 685 S.E.2d 625, 626 n.1 (Ct. App. 2009), blind licensed vendors "are self-employed and are not considered employees of the Commission [South Carolina Comm ission for the Blind]."
·
Sincerely,
·..-:
( c /'Z(. '1

Elinor V. Lister
Assistant Attorney General

REVlEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~B,~

7bertiiCOOk

Sol icitor General

R EMBERT

c. DENNIS B UILDING • POST O FFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA SC ?9211 1549 1

•

-

-

•

T ELEPHONE 803-734-3970

•

FAcs1MJLE 803-2.'il-n7R1

What does South Carolina law say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2013. Ezel checks the current South Carolina statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace