In two recent cases, the Utah Supreme Court and Utah Court of Appeals clarified the circumstances under which an employee can prevail against an employer for termination in violation of public policy.
Public Policy Read Narrowly
In Ryan v. Dan's Food Stores, Inc., the Utah Supreme Court decided that it is necessary to keep the scope of the public policy exception narrow in order to avoid unreasonably limiting an employer's discretion to terminate employees. Rejecting a public policy claim brought by a pharmacist, Ryan, who claimed that Dan's Food Stores fired him because he questioned prescriptions which appeared fraudulent, the court narrowly construed Utah law and concluded that Utah law only prohibits a pharmacist from knowingly filling a fraudulent prescription and only protects a pharmacist (or any employee) who reports criminal conduct to public authorities. Ryan could not show that he was discharged for refusing to knowingly fill a fraudulent prescription or for reporting criminal conduct, the undisputed evidence instead showing that he was fired because of a history of customer complaints. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Ryan's claim of termination in violation of public policy.
Moral or Personal Obligation Not a Substantial Public Policy
Following the Ryan case, the Utah Court of Appeals considered a termination in violation of public policy claim in Rackley v. Fairview Care Centers, Inc. Rackley, a nursing home employee, claimed that she was fired for informing a patient that the patient had received a check from the Veterans Administration. The trial court agreed with Rackley, finding that her termination implicated a clear and substantial public policy regarding the right of a resident of a nursing home to be informed when personal monies arrived at the facility. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, however, narrowly construing the Utah and federal statutes relied on by the trial court, and finding that they did not set forth a clear and substantial public policy regarding the right of a nursing home resident to be informed about the arrival of personal monies. The court decided that at most, the facility's failure to notify the resident regarding the funds implicated a personal or moral obligation but not a clear and substantial public policy.
The Ryan and Rackley cases indicate that Utah courts will require an employee claiming termination in violation of public policy to point to specific state or federal statutes, constitutional provisions, or judicial decisions which plainly state the public policy relied on. The courts will carefully scrutinize these purported sources of public policy and the employee's claim to ensure that the employee's conduct brings the policy into play, and that the termination and the conduct bringing the policy into play are causally connected.