Silfab whisteblower’s lawyer tells judge chemicals in plant months before leaks
The lawyer for a man who claims he was fired from Silfab in Fort Mill after alerting authorities about the plant operating without an occupancy permit last year said in court Tuesday there were chemicals at the plant in June 2025, before Silfab had permits to operate.
The chemicals were there months before two reported spills in early March, according to Cam Halford, the attorney for Jason Rhoades. In court Tuesday, Halford also alleged Rhoades was kept in a room at the plant for hours after alerting supervisors in June 2025 about what could happen if someone working at Silfab had a problem without the proper temporary certificate of occupancy.
The leaks prompted community outrage and renewed debate over whether the solar manufacturer should be in its location in the first place.
Judge Bill McKinnon said to Halford, “These are some serious allegations you are making.”
Halford told McKinnon: “We’re just getting started.”
Silfab has denied Rhoades’ allegations in court documents and has sought dismissal of the lawsuit.
Rhoades and Halford were in court Tuesday because Silfab sought to strike an amended lawsuit filed in the case after the initial filing last summer had a typographical error in the spelling of Rhoades’ name, then a second amended suit was issued without notification to Silfab. Silfab’s lawyer, Daniel Fuerst, agreed to allow the case to move forward because Halford told Fuerst he would refile the correct documentation if he had to.
The Herald and The Charlotte Observer were the only media organizations in court Tuesday.
Whisteblower lawsuit still ongoing
York County in late June 2025 lifted a short stop work order it placed on the company after investigators found employees on the premises who were not permitted to be there, county officials said at the time. The county sent a fire marshal and building inspector to Silfab’s site on Logistics Lane after receiving a complaint.
Halford said Tuesday it was Rhoades who called fire officials in June 2025, leading to the temporary shutdown of the plant. Halford said Rhoades told senior officials at Silfab there was no certificate of occupancy, yet there were employees and chemicals in the building, Halford said.
At the time, Rhoades was working around “some serious stuff,” Halford said of the chemicals.
“There was no fire suppression, there were no sprinklers,” Halford said.
The lawsuit claims Rhoades was fired in early July. Rhoades was in court Tuesday but did not speak.
Fuerst, Silfab’s lawyer, did not address Halford’s allegations in court Tuesday.
McKinnon agreed with Fuerst to dismiss part of the lawsuit .
However, the lawsuit’s whistleblower allegations and claims that Rhoades was terminated wrongly and in retaliation remain, Halford said after court. No future hearings in the case, in which Rhoades is seeking punitive and compensatory damages, have yet been scheduled.
In court: recent “spills” at Silfab
Halford told McKinnon there have been “two spills” and more than a dozen calls for emergency services in recent weeks at the controversial plant. Halford asked McKinnon to take “judicial notice” of the recent events at the plant.
Four weeks ago on March 3, an estimated 300 gallons of potassium hydroxide solution spilled at the 7149 Logistics Lane site . York County announced a separate hydrofluoric acid leak on March 5. Silfab at a news conference March 6 called the second event a “drip” that had been going on for about a week, and said no one in the public was in danger from either event.
But those incidents set off renewed debate across Fort Mill and the state of South Carolina about whether the Canadian solar panel manufacturer should be allowed to operate on its site. The Fort Mill School District closed neighboring Flint Hill Elementary School for two days. Protesters who have been against the plant’s location for years were joined by some state and local politicians who voiced concerns about the plant’s location near schools and homes.
York County, state and federal officials called for investigations or reviews of Silfab after the leaks. After Silfab reached a compliance agreement in March with federal and state officials who did a site inspection, Silfab’s assembly operations resumed.
The Silfab site has been a contentious issue for more than three years. York County planners told Silfab they could operate in the light industrial site, but a county Zoning Board of Appeals later determined solar panel manufacturing should only be allowed in heavy industrial areas. A separate lawsuit on that issue remains pending, with a hearing scheduled for May.
This story was originally published April 1, 2026 at 5:00 AM.
