Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah agencies terminate employees for dishonesty in internal investigations? Macfarlane v. CSRO Explained
Summary
Bradley Macfarlane, a POST training officer and investigator, was terminated after lying to supervisors about extramarital affairs and withholding information during another agency’s investigation. The CSRO upheld the termination, finding substantial evidence of dishonesty and failure to cooperate.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed the standards for upholding agency employment terminations in Macfarlane v. CSRO, a case involving a Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) officer terminated for dishonesty and failure to cooperate with investigations.
Background and Facts
Bradley Macfarlane worked as a POST training officer and investigator responsible for investigating misconduct allegations against certified law enforcement officers. After his supervisor heard rumors about extramarital affairs, Macfarlane was interviewed in 2015 and gave misleading responses about his relationships. Later, when another law enforcement agency sought to investigate misconduct involving a woman Macfarlane had an affair with, he withheld crucial identifying information that could have assisted their investigation. In a subsequent 2017 interview conducted under Garrity warnings, Macfarlane initially denied having affairs but eventually admitted to relationships with five women. The Department of Public Safety terminated his employment for dishonesty and policy violations.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented three main issues: whether substantial evidence supported the Career Service Review Office’s findings that Macfarlane was dishonest and failed to cooperate with investigations; whether POST violated its prior practice regarding Garrity interviews; and whether the CSRO made adequate findings regarding the proportionality of the termination decision.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied the substantial evidence standard to review the CSRO’s factual findings, noting that substantial evidence is “that quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.” The court found substantial evidence supported both core findings: Macfarlane’s own admissions established his dishonesty in the 2015 interview, and his ability to locate a witness “in two seconds” after claiming ignorance demonstrated his failure to cooperate. Regarding the Garrity practice claim, the court found no violation occurred since POST’s established practice only protected against certification revocation, not employment termination, when officers were eventually truthful.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that agencies have broad authority to terminate employees for dishonesty and misconduct that undermines public trust, particularly in law enforcement contexts. The court’s analysis of the Administrative Procedures Act requirements emphasizes that challengers must demonstrate substantial prejudice from any procedural violations. For practitioners, the case highlights the importance of carefully distinguishing between different types of agency sanctions and their corresponding procedural protections when challenging employment actions.
Case Details
Case Name
Macfarlane v. CSRO
Citation
2019 UT App 133
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20180199-CA
Date Decided
August 1, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The Career Service Review Office properly upheld DPS’s termination of a POST officer for dishonesty and failure to cooperate with another law enforcement agency’s investigation.
Standard of Review
Substantial evidence standard for agency factual findings; reasonableness and rationality standard for claims that agency decision is contrary to prior practice
Practice Tip
When challenging agency employment decisions, demonstrate substantial prejudice from any procedural violations, as harmless error will not warrant relief under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.