Howick v. Salt Lake City Corporation
310 P.3d 1220
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Howick was Salt Lake City Corporation’s general counsel for the Salt Lake City International Airport from 1992.
- In 1998, the City created an Appointed Senior City Attorney position with a substantial pay increase and required signing a Salt Lake City Corporation At-Will Employment Disclaimer to obtain it, which purported to terminate merit status.
- Howick signed the Disclaimer and moved to the new status, while others either declined or stayed in their prior pay grades; both groups received increases, but Appointed Senior City Attorneys received larger increases.
- Howick was terminated in 2007; she appealed first to the Salt Lake City Employee Appeals Board and then pursued related litigation after the Board initially lacked jurisdiction, leading to appellate review.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment that Howick retained merit status despite signing the Disclaimer, and the City appealed while Howick cross-appealed; the court also addressed waiver and statute of limitations defenses.
- The lead opinion holds that Howick was a merit employee but may have waived those protections, and remands for the district court to resolve waiver/estoppel defenses and, if appropriate, the Board’s role.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Howick qualified as a merit employee under the Merit Protection Statute | Howick retained merit status despite the 1998 disclaimer | Howick fell within enumerated exemptions and was at-will | Yes, Howick qualified as a merit employee |
| Whether Howick could forfeit merit protections by signing the at-will disclaimer | Waiver of merit protections should be allowed by contract | Waiver should be barred by public policy | Not conclusively barred; remand to address waiver/estoppel defenses |
| Whether the statute of limitations bars Howick’s declaratory judgment claim | Limitations period does not bar the action | Claim time-barred given 1998 acceptance and 2009 filing | Not time-barred; limitations defenses addressed on the merits on remand |
| Whether public policy prevents waiving merit protections | Public policy disfavors waivers of merit protections | Modern statute allows waivers under certain conditions | 2012 amendment not retroactive; public policy not offended; remand to adjudicate waivers |
Key Cases Cited
- Kocherhans v. Orem City, 2011 UT App 399 (Utah App. 2011) (limits of merit exemptions; very narrow exceptions to merit status)
- Pearson v. South Jordan City, 2012 UT App 88, 275 P.3d 1035 (Utah App. 2012) (statutory interpretation of merit-exemption factors)
- Howick II, Howick v. Salt Lake City Emp. Appeals Bd., 2009 UT App 334, 222 P.3d 763 (Utah App. 2009) (Board lacked authority to determine first-instance merit status; district court remanded)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1976) (public policy considerations in employment termination)
- Ockey v. Lehmer, 2008 UT 37, 189 P.3d 51 (Utah Supreme Court 2008) (two-factor test for contracts violating public policy)