Court clarifies retaliation standards, urges HR leaders to review workplace complaint procedures
A recent Utah Supreme Court ruling is prompting HR professionals to take a closer look at how retaliation claims are handled in the workplace.
On November 13, 2025, the court issued its decision in a case involving Theresa Christensen, a former Salt Lake County employee who alleged that she faced retaliation after reporting her supervisor for sexual harassment. The court’s opinion, which remanded the case for further proceedings, clarifies the standard for evaluating retaliation claims under Utah’s antidiscrimination law and highlights important considerations for HR teams.
According to Christensen’s complaint, her difficulties began in 2016 when Brian Beck became her supervisor. She alleged that Beck made repeated comments about her appearance, closely monitored her at work, and singled her out for certain requirements, such as swiping her badge at specific times. Christensen said she felt uncomfortable and brought her concerns to her union representatives, who then reported the behavior to management.
Christensen alleged that, instead of investigating her complaint, management warned her about discussing the matter with colleagues and notified Beck of her concerns. She claimed that after raising these issues, she received a negative performance review, was issued a written warning, and continued to experience close supervision. Christensen stated that these actions led to significant stress, prompting her to take medical leave and eventually retire early, using her own retirement funds to supplement her pension.
The administrative law judge who first heard the case dismissed Christensen’s retaliation claim. The Utah Labor Commission Appeals Board later reversed that decision, finding that the county had retaliated against her after she reported her concerns. However, the Board denied her request for statutory attorney fees.
Both parties appealed aspects of the Board’s decision. The Utah Supreme Court, in its November 2025 opinion, clarified that the correct standard for retaliation under the Utah Antidiscrimination Act is whether an employer’s action would likely dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination complaint. The court adopted the federal Burlington Northern standard for defining “adverse action” in retaliation cases.
However, the Supreme Court found that the Board had not made sufficient factual findings under this standard and remanded the case for further review. The court also clarified that the Labor Commission may award statutory attorney fees to prevailing employees and must assess the reasonableness of such fees.
The decision underscores the importance of responding appropriately to employee complaints and following established procedures. The court’s opinion highlights the need for prompt and thorough review of allegations and careful documentation of actions taken. While the outcome of Christensen’s case remains pending, the decision provides guidance on how retaliation claims should be evaluated and reinforces the role of HR in ensuring fair and compliant workplace practices.
