The Utah Business and Employment Lawyer

  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...

Employees and employers navigating the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or parallel state law provisions - like the Utah Antidiscrimination Act - generally understand the need to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees but often overlook the issue of the timing of providing reasonable accommodations. A recent decision in May of this year from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals underscores the importance of timing in determining whether a reasonable accommodation has been provided as required by the ADA.  In Strife v. Aldine Independent School District , No. 24-20269 (5th Cir. May 16, 2025), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's dismissal of an employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA, holding that a six-month delay in granting a request for a service animal could constitute an ADA violation. The decision offers a critical reminder: timeliness matters when it comes to considering and granting an ADA a...

In Utah, noncompete agreements are ubiquitous. Employers use these agreements in virtually every situation for almost every type of employee. While enforceable if appropriately tailored and directed to employees who perform specific tasks and have access to specific types of information, noncompete agreements and other types of restrictive covenants are disfavored under Utah law unless they meet specific requirements. Whether you're an employer looking to safeguard your business or an employee wondering about your rights, understanding the nuances of noncompete agreements and other restrictive covenants is essential.   A noncompete agreement is a contract between an employer and an employee that restricts the employee from competing during and after the employment relationship ends. If drafted appropriately, these agreements are designed to protect trade secrets, customer relationships, and other proprietary business interests. However, n oncompete provisions can drastically limit...

Under Utah law, unemployment benefits are generally available to individuals who are unemployed through no fault of their own. However, if an employee has been discharged from her job, or if the employee leaves voluntarily for good cause, that does not mean the employee is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Employers often assume simply because they had reason to terminate an employee that benefits will be denied. And many employees wrongly assume they are not eligible for unemployment benefits if they left their job or if they were terminated.  If an employee is terminated by an employer, the employer has the burden of showing the termination was for just cause. This involves establishing three elements: culpability, knowledge and control. Establishing culpability involves looking at the seriousness of an employee's conduct and how harmful the conduct was to the employer. Establishing knowledge involves looking at whether the employee has knowledge of the expected conduct or s...

  We often review employee handbooks that contain head-scratching provisions while reviewing handbooks for updates, during the course of litigation, or in the context of advising employees on their rights and obligations. Over the past twenty-five years litigating employment cases, we've seen virtually every type of handbook provision that you could imagine. During that time, we've noticed a number of common areas where employers make mistakes that can often lead to heavy liability. Here are a few examples. 1. Including Restrictive Covenants in Employee Handbooks. We have seen numerous employees attempt to include various restrictive covenants in handbooks, including noncompete clauses, non-solicitation clauses and non-circumvention clauses. Avoid this at all costs. First, most of these provisions are unenforceable because other sections of the handbook expressly disclaim that the handbook creates and independent contractual agreement between the employer and employee. Second,...

Many employers using severance agreements to limit litigation risk and to assist employees with a transition to another position. When you are terminated - whether involuntarily, as part of a reduction-in-force or organizational restructuring - and presented with a severance agreement to review and sign, it's important to consider your legal options promptly. While negotiating a severance agreement can feel like a daunting task, especially when you're already dealing with the emotions and stresses of a job loss or a layoff, there are certain key steps that all employees should follow, which includes seeking representation from a skilled lawyer who is familiar with employment laws. In simple terms, a severance agreement is a legal document that outlines the terms and conditions of your departure as an employee from a company. It typically includes severance pay and other terms in exchange for your agreement to waive and release your employer from any and all claims. Often, thes...