Can continuing adverse actions support retaliation claims under Utah employment law? Christensen v. Labor Commission Explained

In Christensen v. Labor Commission, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed important questions about what constitutes actionable retaliation under the Utah Antidiscrimination Act (UAA) and whether administrative agencies can award statutory attorney fees without violating separation of powers principles.

Background and Facts

Theresa Christensen worked for Salt Lake County for nearly thirty years. In 2016, a new supervisor began closely monitoring her work, made inappropriate comments about her appearance, and followed her during breaks. After Christensen’s union representative complained to management in November 2016, the monitoring intensified. The supervisor shared her work errors with coworkers at staff meetings, reviewed her past purchasing receipts for errors, and issued warnings for conduct that had occurred months earlier. Christensen eventually took FMLA leave due to stress and retired early rather than return to work.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether adverse employment actions that continue or intensify after protected conduct can support a retaliation claim under the UAA, even if similar actions occurred before the complaint; and (2) whether the Labor Commission can award statutory attorney fees without unconstitutionally regulating the practice of law.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that continuing adverse actions can support retaliation claims if there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse actions. The fact that similar conduct occurred before the complaint does not automatically preclude a finding of retaliation. Here, substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the supervisor’s scrutiny intensified after Christensen’s complaint, creating conditions that would “dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”

Regarding attorney fees, the court distinguished Injured Workers Ass’n of Utah v. State, holding that awarding statutory attorney fees does not require the Labor Commission to assess the reasonableness of legal services, and therefore does not violate the judiciary’s exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that timing alone does not defeat retaliation claims. Even if an employer’s adverse conduct began before protected activity, continuing or intensifying that conduct after an employee complains can support liability. However, practitioners must still establish the crucial causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse actions. The ruling also confirms that statutory attorney fee provisions in antidiscrimination statutes remain enforceable, providing important cost-shifting mechanisms for successful claimants.