Utah Supreme Court
Does UOSHA preempt wrongful termination claims in Utah? Graham v. Albertson's Explained
Summary
Graham alleged Albertson’s fired him for reporting a workplace injury in violation of public policy. The district court granted summary judgment finding UOSHA preempted his common law wrongful termination claim. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that UOSHA section 110(1) prevents preemption of other legal requirements.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Steven Graham worked at Albertson’s Salt Lake City Distribution Center where he injured his back and reported the injury to his supervisor. After Albertson’s terminated him, Graham filed a complaint with the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division alleging retaliatory discharge. The Division found no wrongful termination, concluding Graham’s injury report was not a significant factor in his termination. Graham then filed suit in district court asserting wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Act (UOSHA) preempts common law wrongful termination claims. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on this preemption question. The district court applied the Retherford test, which examines whether a statute reveals express or implicit legislative intent to preempt common law causes of action.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court found that while UOSHA lacks an express exclusive remedy provision, the district court failed to consider Utah Code section 34A-6-110(1). This provision states that “nothing in this chapter is deemed to limit or repeal requirements imposed by statute or otherwise recognized by law.” The Court determined that Graham’s wrongful termination claim falls within “requirements otherwise recognized by law” that UOSHA expressly preserves. The Court distinguished UOSHA from the Utah Antidiscrimination Act, noting that UOSHA’s savings clause undermines any inference of preemptive intent from the statute’s comprehensive structure.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that comprehensive regulatory schemes do not automatically preempt common law remedies when the legislature includes savings clauses preserving other legal requirements. Practitioners should carefully examine statutory language for provisions that may preserve common law claims despite otherwise comprehensive regulatory frameworks. The Court’s analysis reinforces that statutory interpretation must account for all relevant provisions, not just the overall structure and purpose of the act.
Case Details
Case Name
Graham v. Albertson’s
Citation
2020 UT 15
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20180885
Date Decided
March 31, 2020
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
UOSHA does not preempt common law wrongful termination claims because Utah Code section 34A-6-110(1) states that nothing in UOSHA limits or repeals requirements otherwise recognized by law.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment rulings and statutory interpretation
Practice Tip
When arguing preemption issues, carefully examine statutory savings clauses like UOSHA section 34A-6-110(1) that may preserve common law remedies despite comprehensive regulatory schemes.
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.