Utah Law Developments
| Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 27 No. 3 Pg. 32 |
| Pages | 32 |
| Publication year | 2014 |
May 2014
Appellate Highlights
Rodney R. Parker &Julianne P. Blanch
EDITOR'S NOTE The following appellate cases of interest were recently decided by the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, and Utah Court of Appeals
Baird v. Baird, 2014 UT 08 (March 7, 2014)
The court held that under Utah's stalking statute, Utah Code section 76-5-106.5(2), the issue of whether conduct would cause emotional distress must be determined by an individualized objective standard. This requires a finder of fact to determine whether the conduct would cause a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances to suffer emotional distress. The court also held that the statute's extensive definition of emotional distress supersedes the common law definition applied in Salt Lake City v. Lopez, 935 P.2d 1259 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).
United States v. Porter ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 868791 (10th Cir. March 6, 2014)
The Tenth Circuit held that a signature is a form of a name and thus qualifies as a "means of identification" under the aggravated identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.
Castellanos v. Tommy John, LLC 2014 UT App 48 (February 27, 2014)
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a bar and restaurant that was sued for the intentional torts of assault, battery, and false imprisonment allegedly committed by security guards in ejecting plaintiff from the establishment. The bar argued that it was not vicariously liable for the security guards' actions because they were employees of an independent contractor and because the bar did not retain control over the manner of their performance. The Utah Court of Appeals held that the general rule of non liability for physical harm to others for one who employs an independent contractor was applicable because there was no evidence that the bar controlled the injury-causing actions of the security guards. The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that Restatement (Second) of Torts § 427, regarding inherently dangerous activities, should be adopted as an exception to the general rule of non liability because the provision of security services is not inherently dangerous work.
Kramer v. Wasatch County Sheriff's Office 743 F.3d 726, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 3468 (10th Cir. February 25, 2014)
This sexual harassment case is significant for applying the standards set forth in Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013), concerning whether an employee is a "supervisor." The Court in Vance held that an employee is a supervisor for Title VII purposes "when the employer has empowered that employee to.. .effect a 'significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.'" Id. at 2443 (citation omitted). The Court in Vance also instructed that "supervisor" does not include those who lack the power to hire, l ire, etc., but who "nevertheless have the ability to direct a co-worker's labor to some ill-defined degree." Id. In Kramer, plaintiff worked as a jailor and later as a bailiff for the County. She alleged she was sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by Sergeant Benson, who could not hire, fire, demote, etc., but who wrote her performance evaluations; could make a recommendation to the Sheriff about demoting, promoting, or firing plaintiff; and controlled whether she could obtain the road experience she wanted. Applying Vance and other cases, the Tenth Circuit held that "if Sergeant Benson had or appeared to have the power to take or substantially influence tangible employment actions and used the threat of such actions to subject [plaintiff] to a hostile work environment," the County would be "vicariously liable for his...
To continue reading
Request your trial