Wrongful Termination in Utah: Terminations that implicate a clear and substantial public policy

 

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 generally 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., for “cause” terminations). Of course, simply because an employee is not employed at-will does not leave an employee without legal protections. Employees are protected by numerous laws that prohibit various types of illegal conduct, whether the employee is an at-will employee or otherwise (i.e., discrimination, harassment, retaliation). One exception to the at-will employment rule under Utah law is when an employee is terminated by an employer in violation of a clear and substantial public policy.

Understanding what qualifies as a “clear and substantial public policy” is key to evaluating claims of wrongful termination under Utah law. Under Utah law, to assert a claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy, Utah courts require that an employee show that he or she was discharged, the discharge implicated a clear and substantial public policy (authoritative sources of Utah or other law) recognized by Utah, the employee’s conduct brought the policy into play, and a connection between the protected conduct and the discharge or termination exists.

Only substantial public policies will suffice to provide a basis for this exception. Such policies must be defined in authoritative sources, such as legislative enactments, constitutional provisions, or judicial decisions and these policies must affect the public generally, not merely the private interests of the parties. For example, the Utah Supreme Court has held that the right to self-defense is such a policy. Another example is exercised your rights to file a workers’ compensation claim

Utah law has recognized for non-exclusive types of conduct that can give rise to a wrongful termination claim. First, an employee that refuses to commit an illegal or wrongful act and is terminated for such refusal has a wrongful termination claim. Second, an employee who performs a public obligation, like jury duty, and is terminated because of that obligation has a wrongful termination claim. Third, an employee who exercises a legal right or privilege, such as filing a workers’ compensation claim, has a wrongful termination claim. Fourth, an employee who is terminated for reporting an employer’s criminal activity to a public authority also has a wrongful termination claim. Utah law is clear that internal reporting to an employer can give rise to a wrongful termination claim as well.

Utah employers should be cautious about terminating employees who raise safety concerns, report regulatory violations, or refuse to participate in certain protected conduct. Even internal complaints can trigger wrongful termination liability if the complaints relate to substantial public policies. Workers who face retaliation for reporting hazards, resisting unsafe practices, exercising legal rights or refusing to commit crimes may have grounds for a wrongful termination claim—especially when such conduct implicates statutory protections, judicial decisions or constitutional protections.

If you are dealing with a potential wrongful termination issue, it is critical to assess whether your situation involves one of these recognized public policy exceptions. In addition, numerous state and federal laws also provide protections for whistleblowers. Many of these statutes have short statute of limitations periods - as short as 30 days - so its important to evaluate your case as soon as possible. An employment lawyer can help you assess whether you have a case and the time limitations associated with any claim you may have.

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

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

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