Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearingmotionwillwrongful terminationcompliancegood faith

willcompliance

Related Cases

Pang v. International Document Services, 356 P.3d 1190, 165 Lab.Cas. P 61,621, 792 Utah Adv. Rep. 86, 2015 UT 63

Facts

David K. Pang worked as a compliance officer and later as in-house counsel for a company that he alleged was violating usury laws. After repeatedly warning the company's owners about these violations, he was terminated for taking home documents to prepare a report on the violations. Pang claimed he was fired to cover up the company's illegal activities and sued for wrongful termination, breach of good faith, and emotional distress.

Issue

Whether the rule requiring in-house counsel to report illegal activity constitutes a clear and substantial public policy exception to at-will employment in Utah.

Rule

In Utah, the at-will employment doctrine allows employers to terminate employees for any reason, unless the termination violates a clear and substantial public policy.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Pang's termination violated a clear public policy by examining the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly rule 1.13(b). It concluded that while the rule encourages reporting illegal activities, it does not establish a public policy of sufficient magnitude to override the at-will employment doctrine. The court also noted that other ethical rules favor the employer's right to terminate employees.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Pang's claims, concluding that his termination did not violate any clear and substantial public policy.

Who won?

Resource Management, Inc. prevailed because the court found that Pang's termination did not violate a clear public policy and that the district court's error in denying a hearing was harmless.

Resource Management, Inc. prevailed because the court found that Pang's termination did not violate a clear public policy.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 95 S.Ct. 584, 42 L.Ed.2d 574

Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,679, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,389

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903

In re Albert T., 144 Cal.App.4th 207, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 227, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,029, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,311

Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 81 S.Ct. 1826, 6 L.Ed.2d 1191