The Utah Business and Employment Lawyer

In a decision that will certainly provide injured workers with a boost and allow more attorneys to represent injured workers, the Utah Supreme Court held that the Labor Commission's regulation of the amount of fees that can be paid to attorneys representing injured workers is unconstitutional under  the Utah Constitution's separation of powers clause.  You can access the decision here . In a decision written by Justice Durham, the Utah Supreme Court held that Utah Code section 34A-1-309 and the Labor Commission's interpretive regulations violation Article VIII, Section 4 and Article V, Section 1, of the Utah Constitution because the Utah Supreme Court has the exclusive power to regulate the practice of law. The Court found that regulating the amount of attorneys' fees paid to an attorney goes to the very heart of the practice of law and regulating the practice of law in the State of Utah rests with the judicial branch, not the legislative branch For employees who ha...

In a move that was surprising to many, the Utah legislature passed, and the Governor signed, H.B. 251, the "Post-Employment Restrictions Act" in March of 2016. You can review the new law here , which sets a one year-limit on employment non-compete agreements starting May 10, 2016. While the Act that ended up being passed was altered significantly from the original bill that was introduced, the Act prohibits employee non-compete agreements from being longer than one year following termination, and, significantly, requires a non-prevailing employer who seeks to enforce an agreement in violation of the Act to pay attorneys' fees and costs to an employee who successfully challenges the enforceability of the post-employment non-compete agreement. What Non-Compete Agreements are Subject to the Act? Utah Code Section 34-51-201 provides that "in addition to the requirements under the common law, for a post-employment restrictive covenant entered into on or after May 10...

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision earlier this week confirming that an employee can bring a First Amendment Retaliation claim where he suffers an adverse action based upon the employer's mistaken belief that he engaged in protected speech. You can read the decision, Heffernan v. City of Patterson, here . Heffernan involved a police officer who was demoted because of his employer's mistaken belief that he supported the mayor's rival in an election.  In a 6-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision holding that Heffernan's claim that his managers' mistaken belief he was supporting the mayor's rival and his demotion are sufficient basis to raise a First Amendment retaliation claim under Section 1983. The decision was authored by Justice Breyer, with only Justice Alito and Justice Thomas dissenting. The opinion is unquestionably a huge victory for public employees because it focuses on the employer's motivation for t...

In CDC Restoration & Construction, LC v. Tradesman Contractors, LLC   the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict of trade secret misappropriation and confirmed established Utah law that a trade secret misappropriation claim can be supported entirely by circumstantial evidence, even where there is no direct evidence that a party actually used the information. The Court had considered  CDC's claims in a prior decision, finding that its claims of breach of fiduciary duty were preempted by the Utah Uniform Trade Secret Act, and reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Tradesman, in part, by allowing its claim under the UTSA to go to trial. The case went to trial, and CDC prevailed. The CDC case is an example of the perils associated with trying to be secretive about starting a competing entity while working for an employer. While CDC's breach of fiduciary duty claims never went to trial, it appears that the jury relied heavily on the a...