By admin 
An eagerly awaited legal showdown Wednesday in York County court between Silfab and the public that wants the controversial solar panel manufacturer moved from near Fort Mill homes and schools ended without much action and the plant still operational.
Read more New wildfire breaks out on California’s Big Sur coast
There were three cases on tap for hearings. None was concluded or even changed much, and the lawsuit battle among the people against Silfab and a whisteblower versus York County and Silfab continues.
When court finished Wednesday, Andy Lytle, president of the grassroots group Citizens Alliance for Government Integrity (CAGI), repeated what he and others with the Move Silfab movement have been saying for more than three years about Silfab and York County: “We just want them to follow the law.”
More than two dozen Silfab opponents who were there vowed after court to keep fighting the plant at its current location.
Wednesday’s court hearings showed yet again that lawyers for both sides disagree on whether Silfab Solar has the legal right to manufacture solar panels in an area that a zoning appeals board says is for light industrial, not heavy industrial.
Silfab lawyer Brandon Gaskins told York County Judge Bill McKinnon that Silfab manufacturers solar cells in Fort Mill. The opponents say hazardous chemicals used to make the solar panels are against the county’s rules. There were two chemical spills at the site in March that turned opposition of Silfab from worry about “what if” to fear of contamination.
“The one word we can agree on is manufacturing,” CAGI lawyer Cam Halford told McKinnon. “The question is what type of manufacturing. Because if it’s chemical, it ain’t supposed to be there.”
The dispute: Location, location, location
Officials with the county and the company said the plant brings a $150 million investment and as many as 800 jobs. The company has said the plant is safe. But the location off U.S. 21 near Carowinds is next to two schools and close to hundreds of homes in both Fort Mill and Charlotte. Opponents say the plant’s use of chemicals is dangerous and that the county’s zoning forbids the plant at the site.
Since March after two chemical leaks at the plant, which shares a property line with Flint Hill Elementary School and Flint Hill Middle School, public and political opposition to the plant has grown dramatically.
One of York County’s lawyers, Chad Johnston, told McKinnon: “From the outset of Silfab’s interest in the county … the county’s objective here has always been to do the right thing.”
Yet CAGI argues the county has refused to “do the right thing” for years by allowing Silfab to make solar panels using hazardous chemicals next to schools and houses.
But as Wednesday showed, courts move a lot more slowly than public opinion.
Zoning appeals board lawsuit
Last month McKinnon upheld the county’s zoning appeals board decision from May 2024 that says Silfab is not light industrial. That July ruling was a victory for the people against Silfab.
Read more More people voted, Myrtle Beach delivered: 5 numbers from special SC Senate runoff
But not so fast, says Silfab.
Gaskins, Silfab’s attorney, asked McKinnon to reconsider the July ruling. He said solar panel manufacturing could fall under another use and be permitted under light industrial or industrial. McKinnon said he would take it under advisement. He gave no timetable when he would rule.
Silfab officials have said previously it had a deal with York County for the Fort Mill site dating back to at least 2022, and will appeal to a higher court if McKinnon refuses to reconsider. That appeal could take months or even years.
Whistleblower lawsuit
Former Silfab employee Jason Rhoades claims in a separate lawsuit that he was fired after calling county officials about chemicals and unsafe practices at the plant in 2025 before it opened. York County investigated and shut the place down for a day, but Rhoades claims in his lawsuit that he was fired for blowing the whistle on Silfab.
Silfab denies it, and now has filed a countersuit against Rhoades, claiming a breach of loyalty to the company and that Rhoades wasn’t truthful about how he left previous jobs.
Halford, Rhoades’ lawyer, said Silfab’s counterclaims are an “attack” on Rhoades, who was fired after going to Silfab officials first about worksite conditions
McKinnon allowed the countersuit, but said he is “extremely skeptical” about claims from Silfab that Rhoades should have been loyal because Rhoades had apparent concerns about public safety when calling York County officials about the site.
CAGI versus York County and Silfab
CAGI filed a separate lawsuit against Silfab and York County in 2024 over zoning, but yet another judge issued a stay in that case last year because the zoning board appeals decision had not been heard, and an appeal finalized in court. But after the July 21 ruling by McKinnon, CAGI asked for a hearing to remove that stay so its case against the county and Silfab can proceed.
Johnston and Jon Robinson, York County’s lawyers, argued McKinnon doesn’t have the authority to overrule a different judge.
McKinnon agreed, leaving CAGI’s lawsuit against Silfab and York County in the same posture it was in when the court day began.
Also pending is CAGI’s request that still another judge issue a temporary restraining order to stop Silfab from using hazardous chemicals at the site. A hearing about that restraining order is set for September.
Read more Meta agrees to $17B child-safety settlement. SC to receive nearly $247 million
No trial dates are set for any of the Silfab cases.