The Utah Business and Employment Lawyer

  If you’ve experienced retaliation at work for speaking up about workplace safety issues, you may be protected by whistleblower laws. Both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) at the federal level and the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division (UOSH) at the state level provide whistleblower protections for employees who engage in safety-related protected activities. OSHA, 29 U.S.C. § 654, and its general duty provision, requires employers to furnish employment free from recognizable safety hazards. Similarly,  Utah Code § 34A-6-101 et seq. requires employers to provide safe and healthy working conditions to employees in Utah. Specifically, OSHA’s general duty provision, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., imposes a general duty on employers to furnish a workplace “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm” to employees, mandates that employer’s comply with OSHA regulations, and requires employees to comp...

  Utah, like other states, follows the doctrine of at-will employment. Under this doctrine, there is a presumption that all employment relationships are terminable at-will by any party. This development of this doctrine arose from ideas related to freedom of contract and laissez-faire economic principles that were judicially created over time to create a default rule for employment relationships. Stated differently, an at-will employment relationship means that an employer or employee may  terminate an employee the relationship at any time, with or without notice, and with or without cause as long as such termination is not for an unlawful reason . The at-will employment rule is a presumption that may be overcome in several ways, including, for example, through a contract with a specific term (i.e., one year) or through agreements that limit the situations in which an employee may be terminated (i.e., termination for "cause"). Of course, simply because an employee is not ...

  Every licensed educator in Utah is subject to certain professional practice standards, which are enforced by Utah Professional Practices Advisory Commission (“UPPAC”). UPPAC consists of a group of educators and community members who advise the Utah State Board of Education on issues related to the professional practice of licensed educators in Utah. Established under state law - Utah Code § 53E-6-101 et seq. - UPPAC’s responsibilities include, among other things, investigating complaints involving educator misconduct; conducting hearings when necessary; recommending disciplinary actions to the Utah State Board of Education; developing procedures for complaint processing and hearings; and proposing professional standards and ethics for educators. Under Utah law, certain conduct by licensed educators is prohibited. This includes obvious things like felony convictions, certain types of misdemeanors and other actions that affect student well being, like the use of corporeal pun...

  In Kean v. Brinker International , the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's remedy for spoliation and a grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the employer on an employee's discrimination claim under the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"). In the opinion , the Sixth Circuit overturned summary judgment finding that because a report should have been excluded by the district court the employer could not rely on an honest-belief defense and show that "it made a reasonably informed and considered decision before terminating Kean." It also remanded the case to determine whether more severe spoliation sanctions should be implemented against the employer for failing to preserve and retain relevant documents. Under a judicially created doctrine in employment cases alleging discrimination and related claims, if an employer honestly, albeit mistakenly, believes in the non-discriminatory reason it relied upon in making its employme...

  In a unanimous opinion  issued today the U.S. Supreme Court in  Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services  overruled prior precedent - including in the Tenth Circuit - that previously held members of non-minority groups to a different burden of proof for discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. After  Ames, courts may not impose a heightened burden on plaintiffs who are members of a majority group when asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Ames,  Ms. Ames, a heterosexual woman, sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services after being passed over for a promotion and later demoted—alleging that she was discriminated on the basis of being a heterosexual female - for sexual orientation. The Sixth Circuit - like the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals - had previously applied a “background circumstances” rule to such claims brought by member of a majority group which required t...