Skip to main content

Preservation Society v. SCDHEC

SCFebruary 19, 2020No. 2018-000137
Mixed ResultSCDHEC

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

Petitioners seek a contested case hearing in the administrative law court (ALC) to challenge the propriety of state environmental authorizations issued by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) for a project relocating and expanding the passenger cruise facility at the Union Pier Terminal (the Terminal) in downtown Charleston. Petitioners maintain they have standing to seek this hearing as "affected persons" under section 44-1-60(G) of the South Carolina Code (2018). The ALC concluded Petitioners did not have standing and granted summary judgment to Respondents. The ALC terminated discovery and also sanctioned Petitioners for requesting a remand to the DHEC Board. The court of appeals affirmed. Pres. Soc'y of Charleston v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, Op. No. 2017-UP-403 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Oct. 18, 2017). This Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari. Because we find Petitioners have standing, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand the matter to the ALC for a contested case hearing. We instruct the ALC to establish a reasonable schedule for the completion of discovery. We also reverse the sanction imposed by the ALC.

What This Ruling Means

This case was about a legal challenge to environmental permits, not an employment law dispute. The Preservation Society and other groups wanted to challenge environmental authorizations that the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) issued for a cruise ship terminal project in Charleston. They sought a hearing in administrative court to contest these permits, claiming they had legal standing as "affected persons" under state environmental law. The court record indicates this was classified as having employment law claims, but the actual dispute centered on environmental permitting procedures and who has the right to challenge government decisions about development projects. The case had a mixed outcome, meaning some aspects may have been resolved favorably while others were not. **Why this matters for workers:** While this case appears to be primarily about environmental permits rather than traditional employment issues, it demonstrates how administrative law procedures work when challenging government agency decisions. Workers in regulated industries should understand that agencies like SCDHEC make decisions that can affect their workplaces, and there are legal processes for challenging those decisions when appropriate. The case also shows the importance of having proper legal standing when contesting government actions.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.