FORT MILL, SC — The legal battle between Silfab Solar and former employee Jason Rhoades has entered a new phase of procedural maneuvering as the company seeks to block Rhoades’ latest allegations of workplace safety violations and breach of duty.
In a motion filed on February 13, 2026, defendants Silfab Solar, Inc. and Silfab Solar Cells SC, Inc. asked the York County Court of Common Pleas to strike Rhoades’ Second Amended Complaint. The filing follows months of litigation centered on Rhoades’ claims that he was fired in retaliation for reporting safety hazards at the company’s Logistics Lane facility.
The Whistleblower’s Allegations
Rhoades, a former quality control technician, expanded his lawsuit in January to include detailed claims regarding hazardous conditions at the site. According to the Second Amended Complaint:
-
Hazardous Chemicals: Rhoades alleges Silfab stored toxic and hazardous chemicals on the warehouse floor in close proximity to workers. He claims these containers lacked Safety Data Sheets (SDS), leaving employees unaware of exposure effects or emergency procedures.
-
Operational Violations: The complaint states management required employees to work for months in a facility that lacked a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) and had not properly installed fire suppression systems.
-
Special Confidence: Rhoades argues a fiduciary relationship existed, claiming he “reposed a special confidence” in the company to ensure his safety and guarantee that any work injuries would be covered by workers’ compensation—coverage he believes was jeopardized by the lack of a TCO.
-
Retaliatory Firing: Rhoades maintains his July 2025 termination was a direct response to his report to the Fort Mill Senior Fire Marshall, which resulted in a surprise inspection and a temporary stop-work order.
Silfab’s Legal Defense
Silfab’s motion to strike presents a two-pronged defense, arguing the new filing is both procedurally improper and legally flawed:
-
Procedural “Nullity”: Silfab argues that under South Carolina rules, Rhoades was required to obtain court permission or company consent to amend his complaint for a second time. Because he did neither, Silfab contends the document is a “nullity” with no legal effect.
-
No Fiduciary Duty: The company argues that South Carolina law does not recognize a fiduciary duty within a standard employer-employee relationship. They maintain the relationship is purely a contract of work for compensation, not a “special confidence”.
-
Lack of Damages: Silfab points out that Rhoades failed to allege any actual physical or financial injury resulting from the lack of a TCO or chemical warnings, calling the claims a matter of conjecture or speculation.
Current Status
Rhoades is seeking actual, compensatory, and punitive damages for whistleblower violations, retaliatory discharge, and wrongful discharge. The court previously dismissed a claim regarding the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act in December 2025.
Sign up for our Sunday Spectator. Delivered to your inbox every Sunday, with all the news from the week.
