Does an engineer-in-training certificate create vested rights to licensing requirements? Bourgeous v. State Dept of Commerce Explained

In Bourgeous v. State Dept of Commerce, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether an engineer-in-training certificate creates vested rights that protect an applicant from changes to professional licensing requirements. The court’s decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling administrative appeals and professional licensing disputes.

Background and Facts

Keith Bourgeous graduated from Weber State University in 1989 with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering Technology from a TAC/ABET accredited program. He passed the Fundamentals of Engineering exam and received an engineer-in-training certificate. Due to part-time work, it took eight years to complete the required four years of experience. When he applied for licensure in 1997, the Department of Commerce denied his application because the 1996 licensing statute required degrees from EAC/ABET accredited programs, not TAC/ABET programs.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the engineer-in-training certificate created vested rights preventing the legislature from changing educational requirements, and (2) whether the Department violated the Utah Administrative Procedures Act by erroneously interpreting the law or acting arbitrarily and capriciously.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court firmly rejected Bourgeous’s vested rights argument, explaining that professional licenses do not create vested rights because they are not contracts. Citing Riggins v. District Court of Salt Lake County, the court emphasized that the legislature retains “free latitude” to impose new licensing requirements to serve the public good. The court also found that the Department properly interpreted the 1996 Act, which granted the Department discretion to establish educational requirements. Finally, the court determined that Bourgeous was not similarly situated to other applicants he claimed received preferential treatment.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that administrative agencies have broad authority to modify licensing requirements, and practitioners cannot rely on preliminary certifications to establish permanent rights. When challenging agency decisions for arbitrary and capricious treatment, attorneys must demonstrate that their clients are truly similarly situated to others who received different treatment. The court’s analysis also shows the importance of understanding how legislative changes affect ongoing licensing processes and the limited protection available to applicants who have not completed all requirements before statutory changes take effect.