Content area
Full text
Verifying the constitutionality of the state’s Fair Housing Law, the South Carolina Supreme Court also weighed in on the admissibility of materials related to conciliation efforts between the South Carolina Fair Housing Commission and parties being investigated, as well as the requirements necessary to enforce an agreement under the state’s Rules of Civil Procedure.
In 2014 the commission brought an action based on a complaint received from a mother who responded to a Craigslist ad for a rental residence in Mount Pleasant. The mother claimed that she was refused the rental property because she had a four-year-old daughter.
The owners of the property, Zeyi Chen and Zhirong Yang, denied the allegation of discrimination and said the premises had already been rented when the mother came to view it. The parties engaged in mediation and entered into a settlement agreement in March 2016. The owners did not admit liability but agreed to comply with the fair housing law in the future, participate in one free training session on fair housing principles, display a fair housing law poster on their rental property, and pay $9,500 to the commission.
The commission, the mother, Chen, and the owners all signed the agreement, but there was no signature line for the owners’ counsel, who didn’t sign the agreement. When the owners failed to execute the consent order, the commission filed a motion to compel enforcement.
In a series of orders, the circuit court denied partial summary judgment in favor of the commission and granted the owners’ request for a protective order, protecting certain materials deemed to be conciliation materials from public disclosure and/or use at trial.
Acting on its own initiative, the court also raised the constitutionality of the fair housing law. It found that section 31-21-120(A) of the statute, which...