Brehm v. Department of Workforce Services
2014 UT App 281
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Brehm, a senior juvenile probation officer with ~18 years’ service, accessed the court’s confidential CARE database to view records for her children, a child’s co-defendant, another probation officer’s cases, and six supervisors.
- She admitted accessing files to check fines/hearings, to assist an acquaintance, and to compare assignments (suspecting retaliation for FMLA leave).
- Employer’s audit logs showed access to sensitive juvenile records and materials not available to parents via MyCase. Employer terminated Brehm for unauthorized access, citing GRAMA, judicial admin rules, ethics statutes, and internal policies.
- DWS denied unemployment benefits; an ALJ and then the Workforce Appeals Board affirmed, finding Brehm knew or should have known the accesses were improper and that the misconduct justified immediate discharge despite her long tenure.
- Brehm petitioned for judicial review, arguing (1) Employer failed to show violation of a specific reasonable employment rule as required by Utah Admin. Code R994-405-208(1), and (2) Employer failed to prove she knowingly violated rules (knowledge/culpability). The Court of Appeals upheld the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Brehm's Argument | Employer / DWS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of benefits required proof of a violation of a specific "reasonable employment rule" under R994-405-208(1) | R994-405-208(1) controls; benefits should be allowed absent proof of rule violation | Rule 208 gives examples only; applicable standard is the "just cause" framework in R994-405-201–202 (culpability, knowledge, control) | Court: Rule 208 is illustrative; Board correctly applied R994-405-201–202 standard for just cause |
| Whether Employer proved culpability (misconduct so serious that continued employment would harm employer’s interests) | Long favorable work history and isolated nature of incident negate need for discharge | Access to confidential juvenile/court files undermines public trust and risks liability; single severe breach can justify discharge | Court: Board reasonably found conduct "so egregious" that termination was necessary despite work history |
| Whether Employer proved knowledge (employee knew employer’s expected conduct) | No written training or warning; Brehm lacked notice and did not knowingly violate policy | Internal policies, judicial-admin rules, and Brehm’s own admission that coworkers had a "right to privacy" show she knew access was improper | Court: Board reasonably found Brehm had knowledge — her admission and universal expectations of confidentiality suffice |
| Whether the Board’s findings exceeded bounds of reasonableness (deference to agency) | Board erred in factual/legal application and should be overturned | Agency decision is fact-intensive and entitled to deference; findings were reasonable | Court: Declined to disturb Board; its application of law to facts was within bounds of reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Kehl v. Board of Review of the Industrial Commission, 700 P.2d 1129 (Utah 1985) (single serious rule violation can justify discharge)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (legitimacy of judiciary depends on public perception and trust)
- Carbon County v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 308 P.3d 477 (Utah 2013) (agency unemployment benefit decisions entitled to deference; fact-like inquiries)
- Southeastern Utah Ass'n of Local Gov’ts v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 155 P.3d 932 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (mixed question of law and fact for just-cause determinations)
- In re Adoption of Baby B., 308 P.3d 382 (Utah 2012) (distinguishing fact-like vs law-like inquiries for appellate review)
- Johnson v. Department of Employment Security, 782 P.2d 965 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (appellate review standard: do not disturb agency unless beyond bounds of reasonableness)