South Carolina Prisoners Granted Class-Action Status in Suit Over Low Wages in Prison Industries Jobs
On September 18, 2024, four men, all current or former prisoners incarcerated within the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC), sued the agency and Director Bryan P. Stirling in the Court of Common Pleas for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in Spartanburg, alleging eight causes of action related to the DOC’s failure to pay the “prevailing wage” for work they performed for private industries while they were employed under the DOC’s Industries program.
That program is certified under the federal Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP). According to the National Correctional Industries Association, PIECP “exempts certified federal, state, local, and tribal departments of corrections from normal restrictions on the sale of offender-made goods in interstate commerce.” By lifting restrictions, it permits them “to sell offender-made goods to the Federal Government in amounts exceeding the $10,000 maximum normally imposed on such transactions.”
The four prisoners, Damon Jones, Jason Turmon, Ronnie McCoy, and Kevin Casey, alleged in their complaint that they were unlawfully paid just $7.25 an hour, which has been South Carolina’s minimum wage for three decades, instead of the federally required “prevailing wage.” As the complaint recalled, PIECP programs are supposed to place prisoners “in realistic work environments, pay them prevailing wages, give them a chance to develop marketable skills that will increase their potential for rehabilitation and meaningful employment on release.”
Citing South Carolina Code § 24-3-430, the complaint alleges that “inmates must receive the ‘prevailing wage’ for their salaries while employed in the private sector.” Apparently, the courts of South Carolina concur with this assessment. In March 2021, the Supreme Court of South Carolina, in its opinion in Torrence v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., agreed with the determination of the South Carolina Court of Appeals that a prisoner employed under a PIECP program “was to be paid the prevailing wage, not minimum wage, as an inmate employed by Defendants.” See: Torrence v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 433 S.C. 224 (2021).
And in a seemingly bizarre twist, it appears even the Defendants agree. Plaintiff Casey previously accepted compensation of $15,500 from the Defendants after the Torrence ruling, due to their failure to pay the prevailing wage for the years that he was employed in the program. Yet, according to the complaint, since Casey returned to work in the PIECP program, he has again been paid only $7.25 an hour.
The U.S. Department of Labor defines “prevailing wage” as “the average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in the area of intended employment.” The Plaintiffs were all employed as either woodworkers, for which the prevailing wage is $16.36 an hour, or as inspectors, for which the prevailing wage is $20.53 an hour—many times the minimum wage.
Of course, deductions are taken from the $7.25 hourly wages of the prisoners participating in PIECP jobs, too. In addition to Social Security contributions, the DOC can deduct fees for room and board, victim compensation, child support, and taxes. After deductions, prisoners “might end up getting $1.25 an hour for the work they’re doing,” said their attorney, Tom Winslow.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants’ conduct has cost the Plaintiffs over $50,000 each in salary. The suit seeks, among other things, actual and compensatory damages with compound interest on the back payments due the Plaintiffs; nominal, incidental, consequential, and punitive damages; treble (three times the amount) of damages awarded by the trier of fact; and costs, interests, and attorney’s fees.
Curiously, neither the private industry where the Plaintiffs report to work—carpet manufacturing giant Shaw Industries Group, Inc.—nor the DOC will claim the Plaintiffs as employees. Shaw spokesperson Sara Martin referred questions to the DOC, saying in an email that “inmates are employed by the [DOC]” through PIECP. But DOC spokesperson Chrysti Shain responded that prisoners were not employees of the DOC; rather, she said, “They are employed by the companies.”
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class action status, while Defendants moved to dismiss. The latter motion was denied, and a class was certified in December 2024. PLN will monitor and report case developments as they unfold. In addition to Winslow, Plaintiffs are represented by fellow attorney Allie A. Brown at Winslow Law in Columbia. See: Jones v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., S.C. Comm. Pleas (Spartanburg Cty.), Case No. 2024-CP-4203780.
Additional source: Charleston Post & Courier
Related legal case
Jones v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr.
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | S.C. Comm. Pleas (Spartanburg Cty.), Case No. 2024-CP-4203780 |
| Level | State Trial Court |