Can Utah municipal employees confront witnesses in termination hearings? Brindley v. Logan City Explained

In Brindley v. Logan City, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical procedural right in municipal employment termination cases: the right to confront adverse witnesses. The decision underscores the importance of proper procedural safeguards in administrative hearings affecting public employees’ property interests in continued employment.

Background and Facts

Corey Brindley worked as a wastewater inspector for Logan City, a safety-sensitive position requiring random drug and alcohol testing. After testing positive for alcohol in 2018, Brindley was allowed to return to work under Logan’s policy. In December 2021, a second random test allegedly showed a blood alcohol content of .017. Logan terminated Brindley pursuant to its handbook policy requiring termination for employees with a second positive test. Brindley appealed to the Logan City Employee Appeals Board, which conducted a hearing to review the termination.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the appeals board violated Brindley’s statutory right to confront witnesses when it considered testimonial evidence from the breathalyzer technician who was not present at the hearing. Logan introduced both a written statement purportedly from the technician (sent from his supervisor’s email) and a certification form with the technician’s handwritten test results. Brindley’s counsel objected, citing Utah Code § 10-3-1106(4)(a)(iii), which grants municipal employees the right to “confront the witness whose testimony is to be considered.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied correctness review to the due process issue and found that the board exceeded its discretion. Using principles of statutory interpretation, the court determined that the plain language of the confrontation statute requires face-to-face examination of adverse witnesses. The court emphasized that “confront” in this context means the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in person at the hearing. Because the technician’s testimony was essential to establish that the breathalyzer test was properly administered, and because Brindley could not cross-examine the absent technician, the board violated his statutory rights.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that administrative procedure requirements in employment cases are substantive, not merely technical. Municipal employers cannot circumvent confrontation rights by introducing written statements from absent witnesses, even when the administrative body has broad discretion over evidence. The ruling also highlights potential due process concerns with placing the burden of proof on terminated employees. Practitioners should be prepared to assert confrontation rights vigorously and object to hearsay evidence from absent witnesses in administrative employment hearings.