Hough v. Town of Pageland

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Antonio Hough, Appellant,

v.

Town of Pageland, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000453

Appeal From Chesterfield County
J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-019
Heard November 4, 2015 – Filed January 20, 2016

AFFIRMED

Sarah Crawford Campbell and Melvin Wayne Cockrell,
III, of Cockrell Law Firm, P.C., of Chesterfield, Wade
Coleman Lawrimore, of Zimmerman & Shealy, LLC, of
Newberry, William Dennis Curtis, Jr., of Chesterfield,
for Appellant.

Charles Franklin Thompson, Jr., of Malone Thompson
Summers & Ott, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Antonio Hough appeals the trial court's grant of summary
judgment to the Town of Pageland in a retaliatory discharge proceeding. Affirmed
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Hinton v.
Designer Ensembles, Inc., 343 S.C. 236, 242, 540 S.E.2d 94, 97 (2000) ("In order
to prove a claim under [section 41-1-80 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2015)],
a plaintiff must establish three elements: 1) institution of workers' compensation
proceedings, 2) discharge or demotion, and 3) a causal connection between the first
two elements."); id. (providing the appropriate test of causation is the
"determinative factor" test which requires the employee establish that he would not
have been discharged "but for" the filing of the workers' compensation claim); §
41-1-80 (providing the employer with affirmative defenses, including the violation
of specific written company policy); Rule 403, SCRE (stating evidence may be
excluded if its probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.