## Facts

- Cathleen L. Rackley was hired on November 1, 1993, as an at-will administrator of a nursing home operated by Fairview Care Centers, Inc.
- During her tenure, Rackley implemented and proposed operational changes aimed at compliance with federal and state requirements, including payroll timing changes and informing employees about employer-paid Hepatitis B vaccinations.
- In February 1994, a $720 Veterans Administration check was expected for resident Muriel Mellen; a manager informed most staff that Muriel should not be told when it arrived, though Rackley was not told of that instruction.
- Muriel’s daughter-in-law, Sharon Mellen, signed an authorization form and took the check for deposit into Muriel’s bank account.
- After Rackley learned the check arrived and Muriel had not been told, Rackley informed Muriel and, at Muriel’s direction, called Sharon at work; the call became contentious.
- Sharon complained to Fairview’s owner, Joseph Peterson.
- Peterson met with management; two managers were reprimanded for failing to inform Muriel, and Fairview instituted a policy requiring residents be informed of incoming funds.
- Rackley was reprimanded for calling Sharon at her workplace in a manner Peterson viewed as unprofessional; the parties stipulated that Rackley was terminated.
- Rackley sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, relying primarily on state and federal residents’-rights regulations addressing control of resident finances.

## Issues

1. Whether terminating an at-will nursing-home administrator after she informed a resident about incoming funds and called the resident’s family member at work violated a clear and substantial public policy sufficient to support a wrongful-discharge claim.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and reversed the trial court’s judgment for Rackley.
- The court held Rackley failed to identify a clear and substantial public policy that Fairview violated by terminating her.
- The court concluded the cited residents’-rights regulations, as applied to the termination, were too general and insufficiently specific to establish the required public policy.
- The court noted Fairview reprimanded other managers for failing to notify the resident and adopted a policy requiring notification, supporting the view that Rackley’s termination was tied to her unprofessional call rather than protected conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Utah recognizes a narrow public-policy exception to at-will employment when an employee is fired for refusing to commit an illegal act, performing a public obligation, or exercising a statutory or constitutional right.
- A wrongful-discharge plaintiff must show the termination contravened a public policy that is clear and substantial, expressed in constitutional provisions, statutes, or judicial decisions; regulations may inform policy only where they clearly articulate it in relation to the discharge.
- General regulatory protections do not establish a clear and substantial public policy unless they specifically support the claimed protected conduct and the claimed limitation on the employer’s ability to terminate.

## Conclusion

The court rejected Rackley’s public-policy wrongful-discharge claim because the residents’-rights regulations she relied upon did not clearly and substantially establish a policy that required the specific conduct at issue or barred Fairview from terminating an at-will administrator based on the events surrounding the check and the workplace phone call.


Rackley v. Fairview Care Ctrs., Inc., 23 P.3d 1022 (Utah 2001)