S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-10

Section 41-10-10 covers employee wages, including commissions, but excludes independent contractors; disputed employee status is for the jury to decide.

Adamson v. Marianne Fabrics, Inc. · filed 1990-04-16

Although Adamson was characterized in the contract as an independent contractor, it was for the jury to determine whether, under all the evidence, he was an employee so as to fall within the provisions of § 41-10-10 et seq. ... Accordingly, the trial Court erred in holding, as a matter of law, that § 41-10-10 applied to Adamson.

Section 41-10-10(2) excludes statutory military leave payments from wages because they are not compensation for labor rendered or leave due under an employer policy or contract.

Matthews v. City of Greenwood · filed 1991-08-05(2)

The payments claimed by Matthews are not “wages” within the quoted statutory definition. Matthew’s right to paid military leave is an entitlement created by statute, not a contractual right arising by agreement with his employer.

Section 41-10-10(2) treats earned leave benefits as wages, including bonus pay, annual leave and retirement compensation.

Armstrong v. SCHOOL DIST. FIVE, LEXINGTON, RICHLAND · filed 1998-10-15(2)

In this case, the District’s policy revision operates to deprive Plaintiffs of lawful wages, including bonus pay, annual leave and full retirement compensation. ... Such conduct, if carried out, would clearly violate the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Section 41-10-10(2) excludes severance payments and profit sharing plans from wages, but a contractual equity interest may fall within the Act if it is not a profit sharing plan.

Osborn v. UNIVERSITY MED. ASSOC., MED. UNIV. OF SC · filed 2003-08-11(2)

It is clear that severance payments are not covered under the Payment of Wages Act because they were expressly excluded from the definition of "wages" by the South Carolina Legislature in 1990. ... Because there is no indication from the Agreement itself that Osborn was to be provided with a "profit sharing plan," in the traditional sense of that term, issues of fact remain as to whether Osborn's alleged equity interest falls under the Payment of Wages Act.

Compensation forfeited under an enforceable employment agreement is not wages under § 41-10-10(2) because it is no longer due to the employee.

Baugh v. Columbia Heart Clinic, P.A. · filed 2013-01-16(2)

Here, because the forfeiture in Article 4 is enforceable and Respondents have forfeited their rights to compensation under that article, no evidence indicates the defined shares of accounts receivable, unpaid draws, and director’s fees are “due” to them under the Agreements. Accordingly, the items are not “wages” and the trial court erred in holding Respondents were entitled to them pursuant to their wage payment claims.

Section 41-10-10 defines wages to include vacation, holiday, and sick leave payments due under an employer policy or employment contract.

Visco v. Aiken County · filed 2013-09-26(2)

“Wages” means all amounts at which labor rendered is recompensed, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the amount and includes vacation, holiday, and sick leave payments which are due to an employee under any employer policy or employment contract. S.C.Code Ann. § 41-10-10 (Supp.2011). ... In this action, Defendant contends that the SCPWA only required that it pay Plaintiffs benefit days in accordance with or as set forth in its ordinances. The court agrees.

Section 41-10-10(2) defines wages to include amounts due under an employment contract; when a collective bargaining agreement is the exclusive contract, wages due are those agreed to in it.

Barton v. House of Raeford Farms, Incorporated · filed 2014-03-11(2)

The S.C. Wages Act defines the term “wages” as “all amounts at which labor rendered is recompensed, whether the amount is fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece, or commission basis, or other method of calculating the amount and includes vacation, holiday, and sick leave payments which are due to an employee under any employer policy or employment contract.” S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-10(2) (emphasis added); ... Any wages owed to the plaintiffs in this case were necessarily those agreed to in the CBA negotiated between the Union and Columbia Farms.

Section 41-10-10’s definition of wages includes tips.

Gardner v. Country Club, Inc. · filed 2016-06-03

In light of the established purpose of the SCPWA and the analogous case law from other jurisdictions, the Court finds that tips meet the definition of wages under the SCPWA. ... Further, the Court notes that tips could plausibly fall under the “amounts at which labor rendered is recompensed” language of the SCPWA S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-10.

Section 41-10-10(2) defines wages as compensation for labor rendered; expected future earnings fall outside that definition.

Gentry v. Bioverativ US LLC · filed 2019-08-13(2)

The Act does not apply to prospective wages. ... Accordingly, the court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff seeks prospective earnings, which are not available under the Act.

Section 41-10-10(d) defines wages as amounts due under an employment contract; lost prospective wages are not recoverable under the Payment of Wages Act.

Pastene v. Long Cove Club of HHI, S.C. · filed 2019-12-10(d)

The Act defines “wages” as “all amounts .. . which are due to an employee under any ... employment contract.” S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-10(d); see also Dumas v. Info Safe Corp., 463 S.E.2d 641, 645 n.4 (S.C. Ct. App. 1995). The lost prospective wages that Plaintiff seeks are, therefore, not recoverable under the Wage Payment Act.

Section 41-10-10(2) defines wages as compensation for labor already rendered, excluding prospective wages.

Mathis v. Brown & Brown of South Carolina, Inc. · filed 2010-08-09(2)

Based on the plain language of the statutes in the Payment of Wages Act, the Act does not apply to prospective wages.

Accrued sick leave is payable as wages when it is due under an employer policy or employment contract; a void contract and no applicable policy leave no sick leave payment due.

Cunningham v. Anderson County · filed 2013-01-16(2)

However, the contract was void. Further, Cunningham has admitted that he would not be entitled to sick leave from the County if his contract is determined to be void as the County did not have a policy of compensating its at-will employees for accrued sick leave upon their termination. Therefore, we affirm summary judgment for the County on this cause of action.

Section 41-10-10’s definition of wages includes tips.

Degidio v. Crazy Horse Saloon & Restaurant, Inc. · filed 2016-06-03

In light of the established purpose of the SCPWA and the analogous case law from other jurisdictions, the Court finds that tips meet the definition of wages under the SCPWA.

Section 41-10-10 includes agreed percentage payments for client work in wages owed under an employment agreement.

Johnson v. Brock · filed 2021-11-03

Evidence supports the jury's finding that Brock failed to pay Johnson wages due pursuant to their employment relationship and agreement that Brock would pay Johnson an additional percentage for the 80% Clients.

Section 41-10-10(2) includes vacation and sick leave payments due under an employer policy or employment contract in its definition of wages.

Minton v. Little River Electric Cooperative Inc · filed 2022-07-19(2)

SCPWA defines “wages” as “all amounts at which labor rendered is recompensed . . . and includes vacation, holiday, and sick leave payments which are due to an employee under any employer policy or employment contract.” S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-10(2). Here, Plaintiff alleges that she earned wages in the form of accrued vacation and sick leave pursuant to Defendant’s written policy and that Defendant has refused to pay all wages she earned during her employment. Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that Defendant has violated SCPWA.

Section 41-10-10(1) makes corporate agents or officers individually liable when they knowingly permit their corporation to violate the Payment of Wages Act.

Dumas v. InfoSafe Corp. · filed 1995-10-30(1)

Applying this rule of construction, we hold the legislature intended to impose individual liability on agents or officers of a corporation who knowingly permit their corporation to violate the Act. To hold otherwise would require us to ignore the words “and any agent or officer of the above classes.”

Section 41-10-10(1) includes corporate officers in its definition of employer, but an officer without authority over wage payments cannot knowingly permit the business to withhold wages.

Gilmore v. Holiday Network · filed 2004-06-30(1)

McLaren could not knowingly permit the business to withhold wages, because there is no indication that he had the authority or power to grant or withhold wages. Therefore, we find the trial court erred in holding McLaren liable under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Section 41-10-10 includes a company’s officer or agent in the definition of employer when that person knows of and is directly responsible for unpaid wages.

Temple v. Tec-Fab, Inc. · filed 2006-07-24

Clearly, as an officer and agent of Tec-Fab with knowledge of the failure to pay Temple, and as the person ... directly responsible for such non-payment, Lytle falls under the definition of “employer” as contemplated by the statute.

Section 41-10-10(1) permits personal liability for an agent or officer who knowingly permits a wage violation; LLC membership alone is insufficient.

Allen v. Pinnacle Healthcare Systems, LLC · filed 2011-07-27(1)

The Act, found in sections 41-10-10 to -110 of the South Carolina Code (Supp.2010), defines “employer” as “every person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, receiver, or other officer of a court of this State, the State or any political subdivision thereof, and any agent or officer of the above classes employing any person in this State.” S.C.Code Ann. § 41-10-10(1) (Supp.2010). ... Therefore, without evidence that Timothy Gunn knowingly permitted Pinnacle to violate the Act, we cannot hold him liable simply because he was a member of Pinnacle.

Section 41-10-10 defines employer to include agents and officers who may be individually liable when they knowingly permit a company to violate the Payment of Wages Act.

Kuhn v. Inlet Creek Properties, Inc. · filed 2022-11-04

The statute defines “employer” as “every person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, receiver, or other officer of a court of this State, the State or any political subdivision thereof, and any agent or officer of the above classes employing any person in this State.” ... South Carolina courts interpreting the SCPWA have determined the legislature intended to impose individual liability on agents or officers who knowingly permitted their company to violate the SCPWA. ... Therefore, Kuhn has sufficiently alleged that Defendants, including Raley, failed to pay all wages due to her at the time of her separation and that Defendant Raley knew of and was responsible for the failure to pay her wages.

Section 41-10-10(1) uses “person” in its definition of employer, which does not categorically exclude a corporation from being an employee under the Payment of Wages Act.

Thornton v. Johnson · filed 2020-12-07(1)

While the SCPWA does not define the term “employee,” it defines an “employer” as “every person . . . employing any person in this State.” S.C. Code Ann. § 41-10-10(1). The terms “person” and “individual” are not generally interchangeable within South Carolina’s statutory scheme, nor does the term “person” generally exclude corporate entities.