Utah

Subscribe to Utah via RSS

On Tuesday, August 20, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case entitled Murray v. Mayo Clinic, joined four other Circuit Courts of Appeal in holding that a “but for” causation standard applies in ADA discrimination claims.  This standard is considered to make it more difficult for employees to prove discrimination claims than…

The Department of Labor’s controversial rule that required “white collar” employees to be paid at least $47,476 per year in order to be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act will NOT go into effect on December 1, 2016 as planned (we wrote about the rule here).  A Texas federal judge on Tuesday agreed with 21 states that a nationwide preliminary injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to states and employers if the rule went into effect on December 1.

What does this mean for employers now?
Continue Reading Breaking News: DOL Salary Rule Blocked By Federal Judge

After heated debate between legislators and among the business community, the Utah state legislature has passed HB 251, the Post-Employment Restrictions Act.  As passed, the Act prohibits “post-employment restrictive covenants” with restrictive periods longer than one year.  The Act defines a “post-employment restrictive covenant” (also identified in the statute as a “covenant not to compete” or “non compete agreement”) as

an agreement, written or oral, between an employer and employee under which the employee agrees that the employee, either alone or as an employee of another person, will not compete with the employer in providing products, processes, or services that are similar to the employer’s products, processes, or services.

The Act prohibits employers and employees from entering into post-employment restrictive covenants of more than one year and declares such agreements void.  The Act specifically requires that non-competition must comply with other requirements for enforceability that have developed under common law.  Finally, the Act provides that employers who unsuccessfully attempt to enforce such agreements are liable for actual damages, court or arbitration costs, and attorney fees.
Continue Reading Utah Passes Bill Regulating Non-Competes

The Utah Legislature has passed SB 59, which amends the Utah Antidiscrimination Act to provide additional protections for pregnant and breastfeeding women in the workplace.

This law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees upon request for conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding, unless doing so would create an “undue hardship.”  Employers are…

Many employers in Utah use non-competition agreements to protect their confidential information, customer relationships and investment in employee training and development. In a somewhat surprising move, the usually employer-friendly Utah State legislature has signaled its willingness to join California and a handful of other states in attempting to regulate these kinds of agreements.

The Utah…

The folks at KUER ran a report yesterday on Utah’s ground breaking LGBT antidiscrimination law, which went into effect yesterday. Titled the Antidiscrimination and Religious Freedom Act, the law prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity on the same terms as discrimination on the basis of race, gender, national origin…

Utah legislators made national headlines last night when they approved a bill providing antidiscrimination protections to LGBT employees coupled with protections for religious expression in the workplace. Titled the Utah Antidiscrimination and Religious Freedom Act (the “Act”), the bill received support from across Utah’s political spectrum, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the ACLU of Utah, and some of Utah’s leading LGBT advocacy groups. Utah Governor Gary Herbert has pledged to sign the bill into law later today.

The bill could serve as a template for other so-called “Red States” also seeking to balance concerns about religious liberty and expression with the need for workplace antidiscrimination protections for LGBT employees. Our objective in this article is to describe how the new law will impact Utah employers, their obligations under the Act, who is protected and who is exempt, and how the law’s religious belief protections for employees are meant to apply.
Continue Reading Utah Legislators Make History, Pass LGBT Antidiscrimination/Religious Freedom Bill

In an unapologetic rejection of a decades-old legal fiction hatched by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") and embraced by Utah Division of Occupational Safety and Health ("UOSH"), on January 31, 2014, the Utah Supreme Court repudiated the multi-employer worksite doctrine. Hughes General Contractors v. Utah Labor Commission, 2014 UT 3. The Court based its repudiation on the doctrine’s “incompatibility with the governing Utah statute.”

The so-called multi-employer worksite doctrine makes a general contractor responsible for the occupational safety of all workers on a worksite, including those who are not even the general contractor’s actual employees. In rejecting that doctrine, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the responsibility for ensuring occupational safety in Utah is limited to an employer’s actual employees.

Hughes was a general contractor overseeing a construction project involving multiple subcontractors, including a masonry subcontractor. UOSH invoked the multi-employer worksite doctrine and cited Hughes for improper erection of scaffolding in connection with the masonry subcontractor’s work, concluding that Hughes was responsible as a “controlling employer” under Section 34A-6-201 of the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Act (UOSH Act) given Hughes’ “general supervisory authority over the worksite.” Hughes challenged the legal viability of the doctrine before the Administrative Law Judge, who upheld the citation; and then the Labor Commission’s Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The Board based its decision on the notion that Section 34A-6-201 “mirrors its federal counterpart, which was interpreted [by the 10th Circuit] to endorse” the doctrine. Id., ¶5.Continue Reading Utah Supreme Court “Repudiates” the Federal Multi-Employer Worksite Doctrine