Rackley v. Fairview Care Centers, Inc.
418 Utah Adv. Rep. 28, 23 P.3d 1022, 2001 UT 32 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a wrongful termination claim to succeed under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, the policy must be clear and substantial, and it must be plainly defined by legislative enactments, constitutional standards, or judicial decisions. Administrative regulations, standing alone, are not sufficient to constitute such a clear and substantial public policy.
Facts:
- On November 1, 1998, Cathleen L. Rackley began working as an at-will employee for Fairview Care Centers, Inc., as the administrator of its Fairview West nursing home.
- In February 1994, a manager at Fairview West, Karleen Merkley, instructed staff not to inform resident Ms. Mellen about an incoming check at the request of Ms. Mellen's daughter-in-law, Sharon Mellen.
- Sharon Mellen intended to personally inform Ms. Mellen of the check and persuade her to use the money to purchase a new wheelchair.
- After the check arrived, Sharon Mellen collected it and deposited it into Ms. Mellen's personal bank account.
- Rackley later learned that the check had arrived and been deposited, and she informed Ms. Mellen of this fact.
- Ms. Mellen became upset, and at her request, Rackley called Sharon Mellen; the two had a contentious phone call about the incident.
- Sharon Mellen complained to Fairview's owner, Joseph Peterson, about her phone conversation with Rackley.
- Following a meeting about the incident, Fairview terminated Rackley's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Cathleen L. Rackley filed a lawsuit against Fairview Care Centers, Inc. in a Utah trial court for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Rackley, finding that Fairview had violated a clear and substantial public policy.
- Fairview Care Centers, Inc., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Utah Court of Appeals.
- The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that no clear and substantial public policy was implicated.
- Rackley, as petitioner, successfully petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the Utah Supreme Court to review the court of appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does terminating an at-will employee for actions taken to ensure a nursing home resident is informed about her personal funds violate a clear and substantial public policy, thereby creating an exception to the at-will employment doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Howe, Chief Justice
No, the termination does not violate a clear and substantial public policy. To qualify for the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, a policy must be both 'clear' and 'substantial.' A 'clear' policy must be plainly defined by one of three sources: legislative enactments, constitutional standards, or judicial decisions. While federal and state administrative regulations explicitly grant nursing home residents the right to manage their financial affairs, these regulations do not fall into one of the three recognized categories. The constitutional provisions cited are too broad, and the relevant statutes only 'hint' at such a policy. Administrative regulations alone are not 'substantial' because they are created by agencies for specific needs and do not represent the fundamental, overarching public policies necessary to override the at-will employment presumption.
Dissenting - Durham, Justice
Yes, the termination violates a clear and substantial public policy. The right of a competent person to control their own property is a fundamental public policy, supported by numerous sources. The majority's list of three acceptable sources for public policy was never intended to be exclusive. Administrative regulations are a valid source of public policy because they are promulgated under legislative authority and reflect legislative intent. Further, federal law—which can be a source of state public policy—and other Utah statutes concerning probate and the criminal exploitation of elders all clearly demonstrate a strong public policy of protecting a competent person's right to manage their financial affairs. The Utah Constitution's protection of property rights is a fundamental principle that is sufficiently clear to support this exception.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the public policy exception to at-will employment in Utah by establishing a rigid, source-based test. By explicitly excluding administrative regulations as a standalone source of public policy, the court raises the bar for wrongful termination plaintiffs. The ruling forces plaintiffs to anchor their claims directly in statutes, constitutions, or case law, potentially leaving employees who act in accordance with specific agency rules unprotected from retaliatory discharge. This precedent signals a judicial preference for policies articulated by legislatures over those detailed by executive agencies, impacting how future wrongful termination cases are litigated and decided.
