405 P.3d 937
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Stephen Burgess, a long‑tenured and highly regarded Utah DOC crew supervisor, was involved in an off‑duty incident at Salt Lake City airport after drinking with friends; police directed the men to take a taxi but Burgess later exited the taxi and rode with a friend who was later convicted of DUI. Burgess was arrested for public intoxication; that charge was later dismissed.
- The Department’s Law Enforcement Bureau concluded Burgess violated DOC policies on unlawful conduct and professionalism (AE 02/07 and AE 02/11.03); a disciplinary committee recommended termination and the Executive Director fired Burgess.
- Burgess appealed to the Career Service Review Office (CSRO). The CSRO found insufficient evidence he was publicly intoxicated but upheld that he exercised poor judgment and violated the cited policies; it nevertheless deferred to the Department on discipline and affirmed termination.
- Burgess petitioned the Utah Court of Appeals for judicial review, arguing (1) the poor‑judgment finding lacked substantial evidence, (2) he did not violate the cited policies, and (3) termination was excessive and inconsistent with prior discipline.
- The Court of Appeals upheld the CSRO’s findings that Burgess exercised poor judgment and violated AE 02/07 and AE 02/11.03, but concluded termination was disproportionate given his exemplary record, the off‑duty nature of the conduct, and inconsistent application of discipline; the court set aside the CSRO decision as to sanction and remanded for reconsideration of discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding Burgess exercised poor judgment | Burgess: his decision was reasonable given his history with the driver and observations that driver appeared sober | DOC: Burgess knew police recommended a taxi, admitted some risk, and later admitted poor judgment | Court: Substantial evidence supports CSRO finding of poor judgment (including Burgess’s own admissions) |
| Whether Burgess violated DOC policies (AE 02/07 honesty; AE 02/11.03 professionalism) | Burgess: he reasonably followed friend when circumstances changed; not dishonest; charges dropped; POST took no action | DOC: Burgess misled officers by indicating no ride and entering taxi then leaving; conduct undermines public trust | Court: Substantial evidence supports violations of AE 02/07 and AE 02/11.03 and thus rule R477‑9 |
| Whether termination was proportional punishment | Burgess: termination disproportionate given spotless record, off‑duty conduct, and comparables that received lesser discipline | DOC: termination justified by public intoxication, dishonesty, and loss of trust—higher standard for peace officers | Court: Termination disproportionate—public intoxication heavily influenced decision; suspension would have been reasonable |
| Whether discipline was consistent with prior agency practice | Burgess: cites comparable cases (including a probation officer demoted) showing inconsistent treatment | DOC: argued no truly comparable cases under current administration | Court: Inconsistency shown; comparable prior case where loss of trust produced lesser discipline supports finding of abuse of discretion regarding termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Career Service Review Bd. v. Dep’t of Corr., 942 P.2d 933 (Utah 1997) (describing CSRO role and limits of review)
- Lunnen v. Dep’t of Transp., 886 P.2d 70 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (CSRO review limited to factual support and abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sanctions)
- Kent v. Dep’t of Emp’t Sec., 860 P.2d 984 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (intermediate deference to agency rule application)
- Lucas v. Murray City Civil Serv. Comm’n, 949 P.2d 746 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (discipline must be supported by substantial evidence and consistent application)
- Ogden City Corp. v. Harmon, 116 P.3d 973 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (factors for proportionality analysis)
- Sorge v. Office of Att’y Gen., 128 P.3d 566 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (abuse of discretion and proportionality review standards)
- Perez v. South Jordan City, 320 P.3d 42 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (consistency burden on employee to show meaningful disparity)