behalf to pay inmates time-and-a-half overtime pay when non-inmate workers receive it for comparable work in the same area contradicts the Department’s obligation under section 24-3-315. Consequently, the circuit court erred in denying Tomlin time- and-a-half pay for overtime work without first determinin it court’s decision concerning overtime pay and remand this issue to the ALC for a determination of whether the Departmen private sponsor: S.C.Code Ann. § 24-3-40(A) (2007) (“Unless otherwise provided by law, the employer of a prisoner authorized to work ... in a prison industry program provided under Article 3 of this chapter shall pay the prisoner’s wages directly to the Department of Corrections.”); Williams v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 372 S.C. 255, 258-59, 641 S.E.2d 885, 887 (2007) (<HOLDING>). 3. As to whether Tomlin is entitled to
holding a prison industries program sponsor is not an employer of inmates because the sponsor does not exclusively control the payment of inmate wages and finding agreement among other jurisdictions that examined this issue holding prison nurse was not entitled to official immunity related to allegations that she failed to follow the prison policy related to inmate prescriptions because the prison policy regarding the maintenance and administration of inmates prescriptions does not depend on discretionary judgment calls holding that inmate remuneration for prison labor does not constitute wages under section 8127 of the judicial code holding that inmates have no constitutionally protected interest in the wages earned while in prison holding that the due process clause permits the state to involuntarily treat a prison inmate who is seriously mentally ill if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmates medical interest