Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taghivand v. Rite Aid Corp.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 28, 2015

Behrooz Taghivand, Plaintiff,
v.
Rite Aid Corporation, Eckerd Corporation, d/b/a Rite Aid, and Steve Smith, Defendants

Heard September 23, 2014.

ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Richard M. Gergel, United States District Judge. Appellate Case No. 2014-000073.

Allan R. Holmes, Sr. and Timothy O. Lewis, both of Gibbs & Holmes, of Charleston, for Plaintiff.

Benjamin P. Glass and Luci L. Nelson, both of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, & Stewart, P.C., of Charleston, for Defendants.

JUSTICE HEARN. TOAL, C.J., BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ, concur. PLEICONES, J., concurring in a separate opinion.

Page 386

CERTIFIED QUESTION

[411 S.C. 242] HEARN, JUSTICE:

This certified question from the federal district court asks us to delineate the parameters of the public policy exception to the doctrine of at-will employment. Specifically, this question requires us to consider whether the public policy exception is broad enough to permit a cause of action in tort for employees who are terminated for reporting a suspected crime, in this case, shoplifting. We hold it does not.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts are drawn from the district court's certification order. Behrooz Taghivand was the manager of a Rite Aid store in a high crime area of North Charleston, South Carolina. While on duty, Taghivand observed a patron acting strangely and milling around the store with no apparent purpose. The patron stopped briefly in the section directly in front of the cashier, selected a few items, and made a purchase. After the patron checked out, the cashier told Taghivand that when the patron entered the store, he was carrying a bag that appeared to be empty but now had items in it.

Taghivand instructed the cashier to call the police. An officer arrived at the scene and gathered together the items the patron claimed he purchased from the store, and Taghivand confirmed these as belonging to the patron. The officer also searched the patron's bag, and found it contained only dirty clothes.

Taghivand was terminated effective that day, and was informed the incident was the reason for his termination. As a result, Taghivand filed this action against Rite Aid Corporation, Eckerd Corporation d/b/a Rite Aid, and Steve Smith in federal court for wrongful termination; the defendants moved to dismiss. After finding that South Carolina law was not clear on the issue raised by the motion to dismiss, the district court certified this question.

CERTIFIED QUESTION

Under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine in South Carolina, does an at-will employee have a cause of action in tort for wrongful termination where [411 S.C. 243] (1) the employee, a store manager, reasonably suspects that criminal activity, specifically, shoplifting, has occurred on the employer's premises, (2) the employee, acting in good faith, reports the suspected criminal activity to law enforcement, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.