Summary
The Utah Supreme Court reviewed an interlocutory appeal concerning whether the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Act preempts a common-law wrongful-termination claim. The court held that UOSHA does not demonstrate a clear legislative intent to preempt common-law remedies, particularly in light of Utah Code section 34A-6-110(1), and reversed and remanded the district court's summary judgment ruling.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Act preempts a common-law wrongful-termination claim based on an alleged public-policy violation.
- Whether UOSHA's structure and purpose demonstrate legislative intent to preempt common-law remedies despite the absence of an express exclusive-remedy provision.
- Whether Utah Code section 34A-6-110(1), providing that nothing in UOSHA limits or repeals requirements otherwise recognized by law, prevents an inference that UOSHA preempts common-law causes of action.
Holdings
- UOSHA does not preempt Graham's common-law wrongful-termination claim because the statute contains no exclusive-remedy provision and its section 34A-6-110(1) provision prevents the court from inferring legislative intent to preempt common-law remedies from UOSHA's structure and purpose.
- A plaintiff must first establish a valid common-law cause of action before a court reaches the question whether a statute preempts that cause of action.
Key quotations
“Nothing in this chapter is deemed to limit or repeal requirements imposed by statute or otherwise recognized by law.” (¶ 21)
“Simply stated, subsection 110(1), while not an exclusive remedy provision, undermines our ability to conclude that UOSHA's structure and purpose give rise to an inference that the Legislature intended UOSHA to preempt common law remedies.” (¶ 27)
“UOSHA contains no exclusive remedy provision. And section 34A-6-110(1)'s instruction that UOSHA does not limit or repeal other legal obligations prevents us from concluding that UOSHA's structure and purpose demonstrate a legislative intent to preempt common law causes of action.” (¶ 29)
Factual background
Steven Graham injured his back approximately six months after beginning work at Albertson's Salt Lake City Distribution Center and reported the injury to his supervisor. Albertson's subsequently terminated him, and Graham alleged that the termination was retaliation for reporting the workplace injury. The Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division found that the report was not a significant factor in, or the but-for cause of, the termination, but the separate district court action concerned whether UOSHA preempted Graham's common-law wrongful-termination claim.
Procedural history
Graham reported a workplace injury and later filed an administrative retaliation complaint under the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Act. After the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division found that the injury report was not a significant factor or but-for cause of his termination, Graham sought review before the Utah Labor Commission and separately filed a district court action alleging wrongful termination, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court held that UOSHA preempted the wrongful-termination claim and granted Albertson's partial summary judgment. The Utah Supreme Court granted interlocutory review, reversed, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including proceedings on the wrongful-termination claim not precluded by UOSHA preemption.