Can employees sue small employers for age discrimination in Utah? Burton v. Exam Center Industrial Explained

In Burton v. Exam Center Industrial, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether employees can bring wrongful termination claims against small employers for age discrimination when the employer is exempt from Utah’s anti-discrimination statute. The decision has significant implications for employment law practitioners representing clients terminated by smaller businesses.

Background and Facts

Dr. Hubert Burton, a 69-year-old part-time physician, was terminated by Exam Center Industrial & General Medical Clinic in July 1994. The clinic’s president told Burton they had hired a full-time physician and stated he “didn’t know how much longer you older guys wanted to work.” Because the clinic employed fewer than fifteen employees, it was exempt from the Utah Anti-Discrimination Act (UADA), which only covers employers with fifteen or more employees. Burton filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming his firing violated public policy against age discrimination.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether the UADA’s declaration of policy against age discrimination creates a clear and substantial public policy that supports a common law wrongful termination claim against small employers exempt from the Act’s coverage. Burton argued that denying him a remedy would create unequal protection and violate the Utah Constitution’s open courts provision.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for the defendants. The court reasoned that the legislature’s exemption of small employers from the UADA “was enacted simultaneously to and is inseparable from the legislative statement of policy.” Following California’s approach in Jennings v. Marralle, the court concluded that permitting tort actions against exempt employers would be inconsistent with legislative intent. The court distinguished cases from other jurisdictions that had found public policy violations, noting those states had multiple statutes and constitutional provisions prohibiting the relevant discrimination.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly limits remedies for employees of small businesses facing discrimination. Practitioners should carefully analyze the size of the employer when evaluating potential employment discrimination claims, as approximately 70% of Utah employers have fewer than fifteen employees. The decision’s reasoning likely extends to other forms of discrimination covered by the UADA, including race, sex, and religion. However, the court noted that different types of discrimination might present different considerations based on other statutory or constitutional protections.