THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Parham, Smith & Dodson, LLC, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce, Respondent.

Appeal from the Administrative Law Court
Shirley C. Robinson, Administrative Law Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-283
Submitted April 2, 2012 - Filed May 9, 2012

AFFIRMED

Robert W. Jones, of Greenville, for Appellant.

E. B. McLeod, III, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Parham, Smith & Dodson, LLC appeals the administrative law court's (ALC) order affirming the order of the Appellate Panel (Appellate Panel) of the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce (the Department) granting Judy Johnson full unemployment benefits. On appeal, Employer argues the Appellate Panel erred in finding Employee was not discharged with cause. Because substantial evidence exists in the record to support the ALC's decision, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B)(d)-(e) (Supp. 2011) (providing this court may affirm the Appellate Panel's decision if substantial evidence supports it and the decision is not affected by an error of law); McEachern v. S.C. Emp't Sec. Comm'n, 370 S.C. 553, 557, 635 S.E.2d 644, 647 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Substantial evidence is evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence, but is something less than the weight of the evidence." (footnotes omitted)); S.C. Code Ann. § 41-35-120(2) (Supp. 2011) (providing an unemployed insured worker is ineligible for benefits when the worker is discharged for cause connected with the employment); Lee v. S.C. Emp't Sec. Comm'n, 277 S.C. 586, 588, 291 S.E.2d 378, 379 (1982) (holding discharge for cause includes the following circumstances "(1) the wanton and wilful disregard of the employer's interests; (2) the deliberate violation of rules; (3) the disregard of the standard of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from an employee; or (4) intentional and substantial negligent disregard for the employee's interests, duties or obligations").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.