Does Utah's anti-discrimination law eliminate all common law employment discrimination claims? Gottling v. P.R. Incorporated Explained

In a significant decision affecting the majority of Utah workers, the Utah Supreme Court in Gottling v. P.R. Incorporated held that the Utah Anti-Discrimination Act (UADA) preempts all common law remedies for employment discrimination, even against small employers not covered by the Act’s administrative procedures.

Background and Facts

Toby Gottling alleged that P.R. Incorporated terminated her employment because she refused to maintain a sexual relationship with the company’s owner. Because P.R. Incorporated employed fewer than fifteen people, Gottling could not seek relief under the UADA, which only covers employers with fifteen or more employees. Instead, she filed a common law wrongful termination claim, arguing her discharge violated Utah’s public policy against sex discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment in Gottling’s favor, recognizing the common law cause of action.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the UADA’s exclusivity provision in section 34A-5-107(15), which declares the Act’s procedures the “exclusive remedy under state law for employment discrimination,” preempts common law employment discrimination claims against small employers not subject to the Act’s administrative remedies.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court found explicit preemptive intent in the UADA’s plain language. Section 34A-5-107(15) uses the undefined term “employment discrimination” rather than the more limited “discriminatory or prohibited employment practices,” indicating legislative intent to preempt all employment discrimination claims regardless of employer size. The court also identified implicit preemptive intent in the statute’s comprehensive structure and purpose, noting the legislature’s deliberate choice to exempt small employers while creating an elaborate administrative scheme. The court distinguished cases from other jurisdictions that reached different conclusions, emphasizing Utah’s explicit exclusivity provision.

Practice Implications

This decision leaves approximately 70% of Utah workers—those employed by small businesses—without any remedy for employment discrimination. Defense attorneys representing small employers can cite Gottling to dismiss discrimination claims at the motion to dismiss stage for failure to state a cause of action. The court explicitly noted that policy concerns about this result should be addressed through legislative, not judicial, action. Practitioners should monitor potential legislative responses to this ruling that might expand UADA coverage or create alternative remedies for small employer discrimination claims.