Thorpe v. Washington City
2010 UT App 297
| Utah Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Thorpe, former Washington City Public Works employee, was terminated on March 15, 2004 after failing a breath alcohol test.
- Thorpe appealed the termination to the Washington City Employee Board of Appeals, which held an April 6, 2005 hearing and affirmed the termination based on the City's drug-free policy and reliable test results.
- Thorpe did not timely appeal the Board's decision to the Utah Court of Appeals; he instead filed a Governmental Immunity Act notice of claim on September 1, 2005 and later filed this district court action on August 1, 2006.
- Thorpe asserted multiple claims, including unjust enrichment, wrongful discharge, due process, breach of contract, ADA, and whistleblower under the Utah Protection of Public Employees Act, seeking fees under the Private Attorney General doctrine.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding the whistleblower claim was untimely, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board, and Thorpe failed to prove unjust enrichment. Thorpe appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of whistleblower claim | Thorpe argues GIA tolls WBA filing window via notice of claim. | City argues notice of claim does not constitute a civil action and does not toll 180 days. | WBA claim timing required a civil action within 180 days. |
| GIA and WBA interplay for timing | GIA tolls WBA period per Hall; combine statutes to permit tolling. | WBA controls timing; GIA tolling not applicable to bar. | WBA governs timing; statutes read together still require a timely civil action. |
| Review of Board decision (jurisdiction) | Board decision subject to district court review. | Review is inapplicable; district court lacks jurisdiction; exclusive venue is Court of Appeals. | District court lacked jurisdiction; review must proceed in Court of Appeals. |
| Unjust enrichment viability | Thorpe adequately pleaded unjust enrichment. | Unjust enrichment requires lack of adequate remedy at law; not pleaded. | Unjust enrichment claim fails for lack of lack of adequate remedy at law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Utah State Dept. of Corrections, 24 P.3d 958 (Utah 2001) (GIA does not create WBA liability; read with WBA timing)
- Nelson v. Salt Lake Cnty., 905 P.2d 872 (Utah 1995) (statutory terms given ordinary meaning)
- State v. Miller, 170 P.3d 1141 (Utah App. 2007) (arbitration not a civil action)
- Hall v. Utah State Dept. of Corrections, 24 P.3d 958 (Utah 2001) (see above (duplicate included for citation consistency))
- Ockey v. Lehmer, 189 P.3d 51 (Utah 2008) (equitable relief requires lack of adequate legal remedy)
- Buckner v. Kennard, 99 P.3d 842 (Utah 2004) (adequate remedy at law precludes equitable relief)
- American Towers Owners Ass'n v. CCI Mech., Inc., 930 P.2d 1182 (Utah 1996) (equitable relief and remedies interplay)
- Desert Miriah, Inc. v. B & L Auto, Inc., 2000 UT 83 (Utah) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- UTCO Assocs., Ltd. v. Zimmerman, 27 P.3d 177 (Utah 2001) (equitable jurisdiction prerequisites)
- Pearson v. South Jordan Emp. App. Bd., 216 P.3d 996 (Utah App. 2009) (jurisdictional review of board decisions)