Can administrative discipline be overturned for inconsistent enforcement? Cieply v. Weber County Explained

In Cieply v. Weber County, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether administrative discipline imposed for policy violations can be overturned when enforcement has been inconsistent across similarly situated employees.

Background and Facts

Charles Cieply worked as a corporal at the Weber County Sheriff’s Office, where his wife was employed as a corrections assistant. Weber County’s nepotism policy prohibited officers from directly or indirectly supervising relatives. After an initial informal warning in 2019, Cieply was assigned to supervise his wife six additional times in January 2020, with only one assignment made by Cieply himself. The Sheriff imposed discipline including demotion from corporal to deputy and a permanent pay reduction. Evidence showed that other employees, including a lieutenant and another corporal, had violated the same policy without receiving any discipline.

Key Legal Issues

The court applied the two-prong test for reviewing administrative discipline: (1) whether the facts support the charges, and (2) whether the charges warrant the sanction imposed. The second prong examines whether the discipline is both proportional to the offense and consistent with previous sanctions. The court reviewed the administrative law judge’s decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals found the discipline was neither proportional nor consistent. Regarding proportionality, the court noted that most violations resulted from Cieply following orders from supervisors who knew he and his wife were married. Supervisors had told Cieply that “policy is a guideline and not a follow per the letter type thing,” creating conflicting guidance. For consistency, the court emphasized that other employees had violated the nepotism policy without receiving any discipline, including a lieutenant who supervised his uncle and another corporal in the same position as Cieply. The administrative law judge acknowledged “inconsistent” enforcement but attempted to distinguish Cieply’s case based solely on his prior informal warning.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that administrative agencies must apply disciplinary policies consistently across similarly situated employees. When challenging discipline, practitioners should document disparate treatment and present evidence of the full context surrounding policy violations, including conflicting guidance from supervisors. The case also demonstrates that informal warnings or discussions may not constitute sufficient distinguishing factors to justify disparate disciplinary treatment.