Silfab Solar pushes back against whistleblower claims in new SC court filing

A whistleblower whose information led to a stop-work order last year at Silfab Solar undermined the company before he was fired last year, according to a court filing Friday from the Fort Mill company. And he wouldn’t have been hired at all if the company knew his employment history, according to Silfab.

That filing is part of Silfab’s “widespread media defamatory character attacks” against the whistleblower, his attorney stated in a separate filing Friday.

Friday’s back-and-forth is the latest in a legal case related to the controversial Canadian solar panel manufacturer at 7149 Logistics Lane in Fort Mill. Protests have been common at public meetings the past three years, centered on whether Silfab should be allowed to use hazardous chemical near schools and homes.

That outcry intensified in March when reports of two chemical releases at Silfab prompted a state investigation and closed Flint Hill Elementary School for two days. Those spills didn’t cause injuries and weren’t a public health threat, according to public officials.

A year ago, former quality control technician Jason Rhoades filed a lawsuit against Silfab Solar claiming he was fired in retaliation for reporting unsafe working conditions. Silfab has denied that claim in court filings.

In June 2025, Rhoades advised his supervisor and the company director of operations that employees were working in the plant without an occupancy permit, the whistleblower’s filing last summer claims. He also claimed machinery had been installed by Silfab workers and not a general contractor.

Rhoades contacted the fire marshal in Fort Mill, according to the claim, resulting in an unannounced inspection that led to temporary stop-work orders issued by York County.

Attorneys for Rhoades and Silfab have responded several times since through court filings.

The two sides had a hearing in York County civil court in late March in front of Judge Bill McKinnon in which Rhoades’ lawyer, Cameron Halford, said there were chemicals in the plant before the chemical releases earlier that month. No decisions were made at that late March hearing, so the case remains pending.

‘A coordinated scheme to undermine Silfab’

In Friday’s filings, Silfab claims Rhoades undermined the company by working with the media and Silfab opponents while employed there.

Rhoades wasn’t “genuinely interested” in addressing or correcting problems at Silfab but instead was “materially involved in a coordinated scheme to undermine Silfab, prevent it from operating, and harm its reputation,” according to the filing.

Rhoades communicated with news media and a citizen group set up to oppose Silfab’s operation in Fort Mill, Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity, rather than filing a complaint through official company chanels, the company claimed.

Silfab is adding a counterclaim to the case accusing Rhoades, based on those actions, of breach of duty of loyalty.

Silfab also claims the employee lied during interviews, stating he’d been laid off from two previous jobs but that he actually was fired with cause from both.

The Herald was unable to reach Halford Friday afternoon. Halford did, however, respond in a letter to Silfab’s attorney that the court posted Friday.

Halford references a media update Silfab set for Friday afternoon, but then canceled, as “an improper attempt, yet again, to try this case in the media prior to courts hearing the matter.” Halford makes several references to defamatory remarks, stating Rhoades could take further legal action.

Halford isn’t aware of any Silfab policy that his client violated, and nothing that occurred at past jobs is relevant to the Silfab issue, he wrote.

Silfab provided a statement Friday afternoon addressing the dispute, and stating confidence in its case:

“ We remain committed to operating a technically advanced solar facility that meets or exceeds all local, state and federal regulations, with the health and safety of our employees and the surrounding area as our top priority.”

The parties have until Sept. 13 to work through mediation or arbitration related to the case, court records show. A final court date isn’t listed.

This story was originally published July 17, 2026 at 5:02 PM.