Understanding the UPPAC Disciplinary Process for Utah Educators

 

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 punishment, inappropriate boundary violations, harassment of students or coworkers and other similar conduct. Licensed educators are also prohibited from violating state laws regarding the possession of a firearm while on school property or at a school-sponsored activity or interfering with or discouraging a student's or colleague's legitimate exercise of constitutional, legal, or civil rights. Beyond these obvious violations, Utah law also affirmatively requires that educators “comply with all federal, state, and local laws,” take preventative measures to protect students and others from certain types of conduct, including abuse, harassment or discrimination, cooperate with certain types of investigations, and provide truthful accurate and complete information in documents like licensing and employment applications, evaluations of students or educators, and similar documents.

UPPAC involvement is typically triggered by a report of misconduct from a school district, charter school, or member of the public. Under Rule R277-217-5, local education agencies are required to notify UPPAC of educator conduct that may violate established standards, whether such conduct is substantiated through an internal investigation, a judicial proceeding, or allegations from parents Additionally, educators themselves have reporting obligations under Rule R277-217-4, including a duty to report arrests, citations, or charges involving sex offenses, drug- or alcohol-related offenses, crimes against persons, and other serious criminal matters within 48 hours. Failure to adhere to these standards can result in disciplinary action ranging from a warning to suspension or even revocation of an educator's license.

If UPPAC decides to pursue a case, the educator is entitled to due process. No adverse recommendation can be made against a license unless the educator is given an opportunity for a hearing. Hearings are formal proceedings where evidence is presented, and the educator may be represented by legal counsel. In most situations, you want to engage counsel early when you are first notified of any UPPAC investigation. Retaining counsel early can assist you with dismissing unfounded allegations or ensuring that appropriate sanctions are levied against you in accordance with the law for any prohibited conduct. Under Utah law, there are certain rebuttal presumptions for certain conduct and the level of discipline for conduct, from license revocation and suspension to a simple letter of education. Importantly, various aggravating and mitigative factors can be considered at the hearing to increase or reduce the severity of any punishment that may be imposed.  Mitigating factors may include the educator’s disciplinary history, level of cooperation, intent, and the impact on students or the school community from the educator’s conduct.

Educators facing UPPAC action should be aware that early transparency, legal representation, and evidence of rehabilitation or remedial actions can greatly influence the outcome of a case.

By understanding the rules and obligations outlined in Utah Code and administrative rules like R277-217, educators can not only protect their licenses—but also reinforce the public trust placed in their profession. But you should take such investigations seriously and immediately retain competent counsel to provide you advice and to assist you in any hearing or appeal.

For more information, you can contact one of the employment lawyers at Stavros Law by telephone at (801) 758-7604, or by email at scheduling@stavroslaw.com, or reach out to us on our website at www.stavroslaw.com.  

Location: Sandy, UT, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Severance Agreements - Ending an Employment Relationship Appropriately with Sound Legal Advice

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...
Read more

Federal Court Holds Job Applicants Cannot Assert Disparate Impact Claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1986 (ADEA)

An en banc panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that that Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not cover disparate impact claims asserted by job applicants. You can read the opinion here: Kleber v. CareFusion Corp. The facts in Kleber are straightforward. Kleber, an attorney, applied for a senior in house position with CareFusion in response to a job posting that required applicants to have "3 to 7 years" of relevant legal experience (but no more).  He was 58 when he applied and the job was ultimately given to a 29 year old applicant. Kleber filed a lawsuit under the ADEA asserting both disparate treatment claims and disparate impact claims under Sections 4(a)(1) and 4(a)(2) of the ADEA. The disparate impact claim was based upon the premise that the impact of the job limitation on experience was to exclude applications who were older, even if that decision was not the result of discriminatory bias or intent.   Section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA makes it...
Read more

FTC Extends Comment Period for Rule Banning Non-compete Agreements for Employees and Independent Contractors

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it will extend the comment period through April 19, 2023 for its proposed rule banning non-compete agreements for employees and independent contractors. (See FTC Announcement ). On January 5, 2023 the FTC issues a proposed rule that prohibits employers from using non-compete clauses with employees and independent contractors. If adopted, the FTC rule would require employers to rescind any such clauses contained in agreements with their employees and independent contractors, and provide notice that such clauses are no longer in effect. It would also prohibit such clauses moving forward. The proposed rule can be accessed here (See FTC Proposed Rule ). The rule is expressly limited to restrictive covenants that prohibit employee mobility - accepting jobs with competitors. But the proposed rule would also reach non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions to the extent such provisions are functionally equivalent to a non-compete clause. I...
Read more