Can acquitted public employees recover attorney fees despite evidence of misconduct? Acor v. Salt Lake City School District Explained

In Acor v. Salt Lake City School District, the Utah Supreme Court addressed when public employees can recover attorney fees after successful criminal defense, even when evidence suggests potential misconduct.

Background and Facts

Shelly Acor, a middle school teacher, was charged with sexual abuse of a former student. The allegations arose from a relationship that allegedly began when the student was in seventh grade. During a school district investigation, Acor admitted there was an “inappropriate” relationship and resigned from her position. Criminal charges followed, but Acor was acquitted on all counts at trial. When she sought attorney fee reimbursement under Utah Code section 52-6-201, the school district denied her request, arguing her conduct fell outside her employment scope.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether Acor’s alleged conduct occurred “in connection with or arising out of” her employment duties under Utah’s Reimbursement Statute. The school district argued that sexual misconduct could never be within an employee’s scope of employment, citing cases holding that such conduct serves only personal interests. Acor countered that the charges arose from her interactions with a student during school hours on school property.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the employment-relatedness inquiry under the Reimbursement Statute must be evaluated “at a high level of generality.” The court distinguished between vicarious liability standards (which examine specific conduct and motivations) and reimbursement protections (which focus on protecting employees from criminal defense costs). Critically, the court held that once a public employee is acquitted, civil courts cannot re-examine guilt under the guise of determining employment scope. The statute’s structure demonstrates that guilt determinations belong in criminal proceedings, not subsequent civil actions.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly strengthens protections for public employees seeking fee reimbursement. Practitioners should emphasize the temporal and spatial relationship between alleged conduct and employment duties rather than defending the specific nature of the conduct. The ruling also clarifies that acquittal generally forecloses re-litigation of underlying facts in reimbursement proceedings. However, employees should be prepared to address the statute’s exceptions, including situations where they are “found guilty of substantially the same misconduct” in separate proceedings.