Can government officials be sued for defamation while performing official duties? Graves v. Utah County Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about governmental immunity in defamation cases in Graves v. Utah County, affirming dismissal of claims against county commissioners who publicly disclosed sexual harassment allegations.

Background and Facts
Former Utah County Commissioner Greg Graves faced sexual harassment allegations from the county’s HR director. Following a public records request, the other two commissioners voted to release redacted documents but publicly identified Graves and called for his resignation. Graves sued for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and related claims, alleging the commissioners acted maliciously in damaging his reputation.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the Governmental Immunity Act (UGIA) protected the commissioners and county employee from Graves’s tort claims. The court applied the three-part test: (1) whether the activity was a governmental function, (2) whether immunity was waived, and (3) whether any exceptions applied.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court concluded all defendants’ actions constituted governmental functions under the UGIA’s broad statutory definition that “encompass[es] anything the government decides to do.” Importantly, the court rejected Graves’s reliance on the outdated Standiford definition requiring activities to be “essential to the core of governmental activity.” The UGIA contains no express waiver of immunity for intentional torts like defamation, and the court clarified that governmental entities retain immunity unless expressly waived by statute.

Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the broad protection governmental immunity provides to public officials. The court’s rejection of constitutional challenges that were not properly preserved and lacked required notice to the Attorney General demonstrates the importance of procedural compliance. Practitioners should note that the UGIA’s current statutory definition of governmental function is extremely broad, making immunity challenges difficult unless express statutory waivers apply.