Pearson v. South Jordan City
275 P.3d 1035
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Pearson was terminated January 30, 2007 from assistant police chief of South Jordan; City claimed he was an at-will employee and could be terminated without cause.
- City offered a severance package for resignation; Pearson refused and was terminated without reason stated.
- Pearson challenged his at-will status, contending statutory protections should apply; Employee Appeals Board upheld his at-will status.
- Pearson filed a complaint in Third District seeking declaratory judgment and various contract-based claims; he moved for partial summary judgment on his at-will status under 10-3-1105.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment for Pearson, reasoning that the terms deputy/assistant in 10-3-1105 showed Pearson could not be treated as at-will; South Jordan appealed interloquiterly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute governs Pearson’s termination, 1999 Act or 2004 Act | Pearson argues the 1999 Act controls since hire date fixed rights | South Jordan argues the 2004 Act governs termination status | Issue unpreserved; no plain error; remand for 2004 Act interpretation |
| Whether Pearson’s duties fit the deputy police chief exemption under 10-3-1105(2) | Pearson contends lack of exact title defeats exemption | City argues duties align with deputy role despite title | Pearson’s duties were equivalent to deputy, exempt from 10-3-1106 |
| Whether title alone or actual duties determine exemption under 10-3-1105(2) | Title should control; no merit protection without precise title | Functional duties should govern exemption | Statute ambiguous; duties govern to determine exemption, not title alone |
Key Cases Cited
- Kocherhans v. Orem City, 2011 UT App 399 (Utah App. 2011) (deputy status depends on duties, not title; review of city structure and duties permissible)
- Meyers v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 108 Utah 32, 156 P.2d 711 (Utah 1945) (deputy general qualification discussed; duties matter)
- Utah Pub. Emps. Ass'n v. State, 2006 UT 9, 131 P.3d 208 (Utah 2006) (public employment protections; statutory framework for merit status)
- Ward v. Richfield City, 776 P.2d 93 (Utah Ct.App. 1989) (depicts municipal authority over position classification)
- State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, 95 P.3d 276 (Utah 2004) (plain error standard and obviousness in appellate review)