## Facts

- Toby Gottling was an at-will employee of P.R. Incorporated, doing business as Carbmaster; Kelly Peterson owned P.R. Inc.
- Gottling alleged P.R. Inc. terminated her because she refused to maintain a sexual relationship with Peterson.
- The Utah Anti-Discrimination Act (UADA) provides an administrative remedy for specified employment discrimination, retaliation, and harassment.
- The UADA applies only to employers with 15 or more employees; P.R. Inc. employed fewer than 15 people.
- Unable to proceed under the UADA, Gottling sued for a previously unrecognized common-law tort: wrongful termination in violation of a clear and substantial public policy against sex discrimination.

## Issues

1. Whether the UADA preempts common-law wrongful-termination claims based on the public policy against sex discrimination when the employer is not covered by the UADA’s 15-employee threshold.
2. Whether Utah recognizes a clear and substantial public policy against sex discrimination sufficient to support a public-policy exception claim in this setting.
3. Whether the corporate owner, Kelly Peterson, can be held personally liable on the asserted theory.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s summary-judgment rulings in Gottling’s favor.
- The court held the UADA preempts common-law employment-discrimination remedies based on the same policies addressed by the statute, including sex discrimination.
- The court declined to recognize a new common-law wrongful-termination tort that would effectively extend sex-discrimination liability to small employers excluded from the UADA.
- Because the discrimination-based wrongful-termination claim was not cognizable, defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim, and no separate individual liability for Peterson was recognized on the theory presented.

## Legal Principles

- When the legislature creates a detailed statutory and administrative remedial scheme for a category of employment discrimination, courts generally will not create overlapping common-law remedies grounded in the same public policy.
- The UADA’s coverage limits (including the 15-employee definition of “employer”) reflect legislative policy choices that courts will respect rather than expand through common-law tort recognition.
- The public-policy exception to at-will employment in Utah is narrow; recognition of a “clear and substantial” policy does not automatically justify a new common-law remedy where a statute occupies the field.

## Conclusion

Utah’s highest court held that the UADA provides the exclusive remedial framework for employment discrimination policies within its scope and precludes a common-law wrongful-termination claim for sex discrimination, even when the employer is too small to be covered by the UADA.


Gottling v. P.R. Inc., 61 P.3d 989 (Utah 2002)