SCHuman Affairs Commission v. Yang

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of enforcement of the settlement because the agreement did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 43(k), SCRCP. It reversed the protective orders because the circuit court used an incorrect approach to identifying protected conciliation material and improperly restricted the Commission's ability to present its case. It also reversed the dismissal based on vagueness because the respondents did not meet their heavy burden to establish that the conciliation statute was unconstitutional.