THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court South Carolina Human Affairs Commission, Appellant, v. Zeyi Chen & Zhirong Yang, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2018-001879 Appeal from Charleston County The Honorable Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge The Honorable J.C. Nicholson Jr., Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 27988 Submitted October 15, 2019 – Filed July 22, 2020 AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED Randy Alexander Pate II and Lee Ann Rice, of South Carolina Human Affairs Commission, of Columbia; and Karl S. Bowers, of Bowers Law Office, LLC, of Columbia; for Appellant. Zeyi Chen and Zhirong Yang, of Charleston, pro se Respondents. CHIEF JUSTICE BEATTY: The South Carolina Human Affairs Commission (the Commission) brought this action against Zeyi Chen and Zhirong Yang (Respondents), alleging they violated the South Carolina Fair Housing Law (Fair Housing Law)1 by discriminating against a prospective tenant. The Commission appeals circuit court orders (1) denying the Commission's motion pursuant to Rule 43(k), SCRCP to enforce the parties' settlement agreement; (2) finding certain information was obtained by the Commission during the conciliation process and was, therefore, subject to orders of protection and inadmissible under S.C. Code Ann. § 31-21-120(A) (2007) of the Fair Housing Law; and (3) ultimately dismissing the Commission's action based on a finding section 31-21-120(A) is unconstitutional and the entire statute is void. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. I. FACTS The Commission brought this action against Respondents in 2014 alleging discrimination based on familial status in violation of the state's Fair Housing Law.2 The action was based on a complaint received from Stacy Woods, who reported that she responded to an ad on Craigslist for a rental residence in Mount Pleasant and was told it was not available. Woods maintained she was refused the rental property because she had a four-year-old daughter. The property is a commercial building owned by Respondents that contains a skin care and acupuncture clinic. There are additional rooms over the business that Respondents offered for rent, although the rooms did not have full kitchens and bathrooms inside the premises. In several responses to the complaint (deemed "position statements" by the Commission), Respondents denied the allegation of discrimination. They stated the premises had already been rented when Woods came to view it, and Woods was informed of this fact. Respondents also advised the Commission that the rental property was not suitable for a young child due to the lack of ready access to facilities and the fact that it was above the clinic, where clients came for treatment in a quiet atmosphere. 1 S.C. Code Ann. §§ 31-21-10 to -150 (2007 & Supp. 2019). 2 See S.C. Code Ann. § 31-21-30(6)(a) (2007) (defining "familial status" to mean one or more individuals who are under the age of eighteen and domiciled with a parent, another person having legal custody, or a designee); id. § 31-21-40(2) (providing it is unlawful to discriminate against any person in the sale or rental of a dwelling because of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals