In court, Richland Co. says former admin has grounds for multi-million-dollar lawsuit
Richland County’s own attorney told a South Carolina judge on Wednesday that a former county administrator had many potential grounds for a lawsuit against the county, and a $1 million payout Richland County Council offered to Gerald Seals was on the low end of what he could have claimed in court.
That admission came as Judge Jocelyn Newman considered competing arguments in a remote court hearing on Wednesday on whether to overturn the two-year-old settlement between Seals, a former county administrator, and the county.
The lawsuit brought by Richland County resident William Coggins challenges the 2018 decision by Richland County Council to award nearly $1 million to Seals. The county council initially voted 6-5 to fire Seals but backtracked when council members learned they had not followed state law in terminating his employment.
The council then reached a settlement with Seals.
The charges left Richland County attorney Andrew Lindemann in the awkward position of arguing the $1 million was a reasonable payment because Seals had many potentially actionable complaints against Richland County. Seals could reap an even larger amount if he sued the county in court, Lindemann said.
He cited potential claims for racial discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation.
“I hate to be in the situation of counseling Mr. Seals about what claims he could bring against my client,” Lindemann said at one point during the proceeding Wednesday.
Clarence Davis, Seals’ attorney, told Newman his client would certainly pursue legal action if the court tries to unwind the settlement reached by the former administrator and the county.
“Based on the public disparagement of my client’s reputation in the community, among county administrators and even among fellow clergymen, I can say action would be brought in court,” Davis said.
Coggins’ attorney, Joe McCulloch, denied that he was trying to get the court to order Seals to disgorge the $1 million payment he has already received, even saying he believed that was beyond Newman’s purview. Instead, McCulloch’s client is seeking to have the court invalidate county council’s 2018 vote to approve the settlement based on what the attorney claimed were invalid, self-interested votes.
He pointed to advisory text messages sent to Seals by Councilwoman Dalhi Myers during the council’s private deliberations over a potential settlement. McCulloch argued those texts showed Myers had failed in her fiduciary responsibilities to protect the county’s financial interest, because she advised him, “Don’t counter small or reasonable. Go big” in her texts.
Asked about the texts last year by The State, Myers said she publicly opposed Seals’ firing at the time, and believed he could be brought back as administrator or offered a lower settlement than he could receive in court.
“I encouraged him to accept a much smaller settlement than he was demanding and, if possible, return to work,” Myers said. “Gerald Seals was wrongfully terminated, and I was standing up for him.” The settlement payment “should have been higher.”
If the votes of Myers and two other former council members — Norman Jackson and Greg Pearce, whom McCulloch said were implicated in “irregularities” outlined in a letter Seals wrote challenging his firing — are ultimately thrown out, it would invalidate the 5-4 vote to approve Seals’ settlement.
At that point, the current county council could vote again on whether or not to offer Seals the same settlement, or a different settlement.
“But that will be an issue for another day and someone else’s problem, and it won’t be mine,” McCulloch said.
If Seals does take his case against Richland County back to court, he would have to answer for being a “co-conspirator” to get the initial settlement passed in the first place, McCulloch said.
But Lindemann argued McCulloch had not identified any claims Seals may have against individual council members, and only his employer, Richland County, would be liable under an employment suit. Davis said Seals had only ever contemplated a suit against the county.
While any potential claims brought by Seals in state court could be dented by the at-will nature of his employment with the county, Lindemann argued Seals could potentially reap an uncapped amount of damages in a federal employment suit.
Lindemann also questioned if it would be appropriate for Newman to reverse a council decision, arguing any ethical complaints against council members’ conduct are best dealt with by the S.C. Ethics Commission, or by the voters at the ballot box.
“A court can remand a decision back to a lower court, but I don’t think they can remand one back to a legislative body,” he said. “You’re being asked to substitute the court’s judgment for effectively a political decision of the council.”
Newman wrapped up Wednesday’s hearing without issuing a judgment, saying she would need time to go through the lengthy filings attorneys had made in the case.
“I have a lot of reading to do,” Newman said.
This story was originally published August 13, 2020 at 10:46 AM.
.jpg)