concurring:
I agree with the majority that the inmates in this matter do not have a cause of action under the Tort Claims Act. I conclude, however, that the Prevailing Wage Statute8 was intended for the benefit of the Inmates.9 Citizens for Lee County v. Lee County, 308 S.C. 23, 416 S.E.2d 641 (1992). In my opinion, the fact that the Legislature provided for the distribution of part of these wages to pay the inmate’s legal obligations while incarcerated, and included a provision providing for the return of the wages escrowed for the inmate’s benefit upon his release, is evidence that § 24-3-430 was intended for the welfare of the inmate, not the general public. S.C.Code Ann. § 24-3-40 (Supp. 2003). I would hold that an inmate who claims not to have been paid the prevailing wage is entitled to proceed under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act. S.C.Code Ann. §§ 41-10-10, et seq. (Supp.2003).10 Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s decision upholding the circuit court’s dismissal of this Tort Claims suit, but do not join the holding that the inmates’ remedy is an administrative grievance.
. S.C.Code Ann. § 24-3-430 (Supp.2003).
. I agree that it was also intended for the benefit of private industries whose products or services could be impacted if unfair competition resulted from underpayment of wages to inmate laborers.
. Under the Payment of Wages Act, “Employer" is defined to include the employer and that employer’s agents. § 41-10-10(1). The Prison Industries Act provides “the employer of a prisoner authorized to work ... in a prison industry program ... shall pay the wages directly to the Department of Corrections ...” and then requires the Department to distribute those wages. § 24-3-40. In my opinion, the Department of Corrections, as agent of the employer, is subject to an inmate's claim made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act.