When does the clock start ticking on employment grievances? Utah County v. Alexanderson Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about employment grievance timeliness in Utah County v. Alexanderson, involving two sheriff’s deputies who challenged their department’s promotion procedures.

Background and Facts

In 1991, Deputies George Alexanderson and Charles Martin worked as shift supervisors at the Utah County Jail. After a reclassification study, the department eliminated their positions and created new sergeant roles with higher pay. The deputies were temporarily moved to lower-ranked corrections specialist positions but expected promotion to sergeant based on management representations. However, neither was promoted in December 1991, despite being qualified. The deputies suspected some promoted individuals were unqualified but lacked access to eligibility information. In December 1996, they learned from Sheriff Bateman that he erroneously believed shift supervisor “was never a ranked position,” potentially explaining why they weren’t considered as ranked officers for promotion.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the Utah County Career Service Council grossly and flagrantly abused its discretion in determining the deputies’ January 1997 grievance was timely filed. County personnel rules required written notice “within three months from the date of occurrence.” Utah County argued the grievance was untimely because it should have been filed within three months of the 1991 promotion decisions.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied the heightened gross and flagrant abuse of discretion standard required for Rule 65B extraordinary writ review. The court found the Council’s implicit factual determination that the deputies weren’t reasonably aware of their grievance until December 1996 was not clearly erroneous. The Council reasonably concluded that the “date of occurrence” was when the deputies discovered the sheriff’s erroneous assumption about their rank status, not the original 1991 promotion decisions.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that administrative timeliness rules may be interpreted to begin when employees reasonably discover their claims rather than when the underlying action occurred. For practitioners, the ruling emphasizes that Rule 65B requires proving gross and flagrant abuse of discretion—a much higher standard than typical appellate review. The decision also illustrates how discovery of new information can reset limitation periods for employment grievances.