Does a Utah Governmental Employee Have a Right to Stay in Current Job Position?

The federal appellate court having jurisdiction over federal questions arising in Utah, the Tenth Circuit, issued a decision on January 6, 2009, delineating the scope of the rights that an employee employed by a governmental entity may have in staying in the same position that he or she has historically had. The case, Potts v. Davis County, involved the law suit of a sheriff deputy employed by the Davis County Sheriff’s Department. The deputy, who was a Patrol Sergeant, was investigated for six alleged violations, including failing to respond to calls for assistance, requiring his crew to leave assigned areas, and spending an inordinate amount of time in inactive capacity. After the investigation, he was terminated.

The deputy then appealed his termination to the county merit system appeal board. During the hearing, the Davis County Sheriff dropped the three above-mentioned charges, and the appeal board reversed the termination on the other three charges. The deputy was reinstated to the same rank in the Davis County Sheriff’s Deparment. However, the Sheriff assigned the deputy to court security rather than back to patrol. After requesting reassignment to patrol, where he could get night differential, the deputy quit and sued the County for violating his due process rights.

Unlike private employees, employees working for governmental entities have constitutional protections that keep their governmental employers from taking away the employees’ property or liberty without due process. In this case, the deputy alleged that he had a property right to continue in his position as a Patrol Sergeant. He also claimed that his liberty interests were violated when he was not able to prove that the three dropped charges against him were false.

The Tenth Circuit ruled against the deputy saying that a governmental employee does not have the right to the same position even if another position to which he is transferred does not have “every nuance and detail” that is the same as the original position. The court also said that, because the governmental employee had been reinstated after his hearing, he was not entitled to clear his name of the other three charges that had been dropped because the public would look on his reinstatement as a indication.