The Importance of Mine Safety: The Armstrong v. Argos Case

Adam Armstrong, a former employee of Argos USA LLC, filed a lawsuit against Argos and his supervisor, Robert Charles Kocian, in South Carolina's Court of Common Pleas on November 22, 2022. Armstrong's complaint included claims of wrongful termination against both defendants, as well as negligent supervision and negligent retention against Argos. 

According to Armstrong, he was employed as a process engineer at Argos’ cement plant in Harleyville, South Carolina, and held responsibilities for both supervising employees and ensuring their safety. Armstrong alleged that Kocian, as his supervisor, held the authority to hire, discipline, and terminate employees on behalf of Argos. He claimed that Kocian’s financial incentives—specifically bonuses tied to production rates—influenced his prioritization of production over safety. Armstrong further alleged that Kocian disregarded industry safety standards by enforcing extended work hours and making unauthorized modifications to plant equipment. 

Alleged Workplace Safety Incident

September 2021, a significant workplace incident reportedly occurred at the Harleyville plant. Armstrong alleged that a clog developed in a cement storage container, and, as a safety precaution, he instructed his crew to address the clog from above, avoiding an access hatch directly beneath the clog. Armstrong reasoned that addressing the blockage from below risked employee safety, as dislodging the clog could release several tons of material, potentially engulfing workers below. His crew reportedly worked on clearing the blockage for nine hours, but they were unable to complete the task.

When Kocian arrived, Armstrong alleged, he directed the crew to use a different approach, instructing employees to open the lower access hatch and use a rivet buster to clear the clog. This method reportedly cleared the blockage within 1.5 hours. Armstrong claimed that after this incident, Kocian reprimanded him for his initial handling of the clog. Armstrong asserted that he responded by emphasizing his unwillingness to risk employees' lives for production efficiency. He further alleged that Kocian terminated him a year later, on September 30, 2022, due to his “reluctance to follow [Kocian’s] feedback.” Armstrong attributed this termination to his adherence to safety protocols over production demands.

Federal Jurisdiction and Removal to District Court

After Armstrong filed the suit, Argos removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on February 3, 2023, citing diversity jurisdiction. Argos argued that, although both Armstrong and Kocian were citizens of South Carolina, Kocian was fraudulently joined to the suit, and his citizenship should be disregarded for jurisdictional purposes. Argos asserted that Armstrong’s claim against Kocian individually—wrongful termination in violation of public policy—was unsupported under South Carolina law, as Armstrong had an existing statutory remedy.

The court reviewed Armstrong’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) to determine whether his allegations established a plausible claim for relief. The court applied South Carolina’s doctrine of “fraudulent joinder,” which permits a federal court to disregard the citizenship of a non-diverse defendant if the plaintiff has no valid cause of action against that defendant under state law. Under South Carolina law, the court found that Armstrong’s claim against Kocian individually did not meet the public policy exception to at-will employment because a statutory remedy was available.

The Mine Safety and Health Act, which governs safety conditions at cement plants like Argos’, provides protection for employees who refuse work under dangerous conditions. The Mine Act enables employees to file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor, triggering an investigation and potentially leading to reinstatement with back pay if the complaint is substantiated. The court noted that Armstrong could have pursued a remedy under this statute, thus barring his claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy under state law.

The court concluded that Kocian’s citizenship could be disregarded, establishing diversity jurisdiction. Consequently, it considered the defendants’ motion to dismiss Armstrong’s claims.

Dismissal of Wrongful Termination Claim Against Argos

The court proceeded to address Armstrong’s wrongful termination claim against Argos, applying the same reasoning. Because Armstrong had a statutory remedy available under the Mine Act, his claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy under South Carolina law could not proceed. Citing state legal precedent, the court held that the existence of a statutory remedy precluded Armstrong from pursuing this specific common law claim.

Dismissal of Negligent Supervision and Retention Claims

In addition to wrongful termination, Armstrong alleged negligent supervision and retention by Argos. For a negligence claim under South Carolina law, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed them a duty of care. Argos argued that, as an at-will employer, it had no legal duty regarding Armstrong’s continued employment, and thus, Armstrong could not establish the first element of a negligence claim.

The court agreed, noting that South Carolina’s at-will employment doctrine does not impose a duty of care on employers when terminating an at-will employee. Armstrong’s complaint did not allege he was anything other than an at-will employee who could be terminated at any time. Consequently, the court found no actionable negligence, holding that Armstrong’s claims for negligent supervision and negligent retention lacked a viable legal basis.

Conclusion

The District Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the case under diversity jurisdiction, based on the finding that Kocian was fraudulently joined. The court granted Argos’ motion to dismiss all claims, finding that Armstrong’s allegations, even taken as true, did not support a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy or for negligence under South Carolina law.