In a filing submitted on December 31, 2025, to the York County Court of Common Pleas, Silfab Solar, Inc. and Silfab Solar Cells SC, Inc. (collectively “Silfab”) formally denied allegations of wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation brought by former employee Jason Rhoades. While the company admitted to specific operational details—including the issuance of a temporary stop work order by York County—it broadly rejected claims of liability.
Key Factual Admissions While denying the core accusations, Silfab admitted to the following facts regarding the Plaintiff and their Fort Mill operations:
-
Employment Status: The Plaintiff was employed as a quality control technician at Silfab’s facility in Fort Mill, SC.
-
Termination Date: The Plaintiff’s employment was terminated on or about July 7, 2025.
-
Facility Construction: Silfab confirmed it is actively constructing a solar cell and panel manufacturing facility at 7149 Logistics Lane in Fort Mill.
-
Government Intervention: Silfab admitted that York County issued an inspection and a temporary stop work order at the facility.
Response to Legal Claims The filing outlines Silfab’s specific responses to the causes of action listed in the Amended Complaint:
-
Whistleblower & Retaliation Claims: Silfab admitted the Plaintiff was terminated but denied all allegations regarding whistleblower retaliation or retaliatory discharge.
-
Wrongful Discharge: The company denied liability for wrongful discharge.
-
Unfair Trade Practices: Silfab noted that the Fourth Cause of Action (Violation of Unfair Trade Practices Act) was previously dismissed by a court order on December 18, 2025, and required no further response.
Primary Defenses Asserted Silfab listed several affirmative defenses against the lawsuit, including:
-
Failure to State a Claim: The complaint allegedly fails to provide sufficient facts to constitute a legal cause of action.
-
Failure to Exhaust Remedies: The Plaintiff may be barred from suing if he failed to exhaust administrative remedies first.
-
Constitutional Bar: Silfab argues that claims for punitive damages are barred by due process clauses in the U.S. and South Carolina Constitutions.
-
Failure to Mitigate: The defense argues the Plaintiff failed to take steps to mitigate his own damages.
Requested Outcome Silfab has requested that the court dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, enter a judgment in favor of the company, and award Silfab reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Silfab Answer To Amended Complaint
Sign up for our Sunday Spectator. Delivered to your inbox every Sunday, with all the news from the week.
