Can hearing officers consider employee conduct during administrative proceedings as evidence? Onysko v. Dept. of Envntl. Quality Explained

In Onysko v. Dept. of Envntl. Quality, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether administrative hearing officers may properly consider an employee’s conduct during formal proceedings as corroborative evidence of workplace behavior allegations.

Background and Facts

Steven Onysko, a level III environmental engineer with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), was terminated after nearly twenty years of employment for abusive conduct toward coworkers and customers. Despite technical competency, Onysko received multiple warnings for unprofessional behavior, including filing intimidating GRAMA requests against his supervisor and making threats over performance evaluations. After DEQ terminated him in 2017, Onysko appealed to the Career Service Review Office (CSRO), which conducted a seven-day evidentiary hearing and affirmed the termination.

Key Legal Issues

Onysko challenged the CSRO decision on multiple grounds: (1) whether the hearing officer improperly used his in-hearing conduct as propensity evidence, (2) whether he received adequate due process notice of termination reasons, and (3) whether certain findings violated the residuum rule by relying exclusively on inadmissible hearsay.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals affirmed, rejecting each challenge. Regarding the in-hearing conduct, the court found the hearing officer properly used Onysko’s disruptive behavior during the seven-day proceeding—including intimidating witnesses and making baseless accusations against counsel—as corroborative evidence rather than primary substantive evidence. Under Utah Code section 63G-4-208(2), hearing officers may use their experience to evaluate evidence when resolving conflicting testimony about workplace impact.

On due process, the court determined Onysko received adequate notice through the Intent to Dismiss and accompanying documents, even where some specific details appeared only in referenced investigation reports. The court emphasized that Onysko participated meaningfully in his pre-termination hearing, presenting over 162 pages of documents during a two-hour meeting with DEQ’s executive director.

Regarding the residuum rule violations, the court noted that Onysko failed to provide proper hearsay analysis under Utah Rule of Evidence 801, instead arguing only about witnesses’ lack of personal knowledge under Rule 602, which is irrelevant to residuum rule determinations.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that administrative hearing officers have broad discretion to use extended observations of party conduct as corroboration when resolving disputed factual issues about workplace behavior. For employment termination cases, practitioners should ensure adequate briefing on the technical elements of hearsay rather than relying on personal knowledge arguments when challenging evidentiary findings.