Utah Code

Utah Code § 34-28-19 (2026)

Retaliation prohibited -- Administrative process -- Enforcement -- Rulemaking

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

An employer violates this chapter if the employer takes an action described in Subsection (1)(b) against an employee because:

the employee files a complaint or testifies in a proceeding relative to the enforcement of this chapter;

the employee is going to file a complaint or testify in a proceeding relative to the enforcement of this chapter; or

the employer believes that the employee may file a complaint or testify in any proceeding relative to the enforcement of this chapter.

Subsection (1)(a) applies to the following actions of an employer:

the discharge of an employee;

the demotion of an employee; or

any other form of retaliation against an employee in the terms, privileges, or conditions of employment.

An employee claiming to be aggrieved by an action of the employer in violation of Subsection (1) may file with the division a request for agency action.

On receipt of a request for agency action under Subsection (2)(a), the division:

shall conduct an adjudicative proceeding pursuant to Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act; and

may attempt to reach a settlement between the parties through a settlement conference.

If the division determines that a violation has occurred, the division may require the employer to:

cease and desist any retaliatory action;

compensate the employee, which compensation may not exceed reimbursement for, and payment of, lost wages and benefits to the employee; or

do both Subsections (3)(a) and (b).

The division may enforce this section in accordance with Subsections 34-28-9(4) and (5).

In accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, the commission shall adopt rules, as required, to implement this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2022 · leading case: Parkdale Care Ctr. v. Frandsen, 837 P.2d 989 (Utah Ct. App. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Parkdale Care Ctr. v. Frandsen, 837 P.2d 989 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 12× “They alleged their *991 dismissals violated Utah Code Ann. § 34-28-19 (1) (Supp.1991), which prohibits an employer from discharging an employee in retaliation for filing complaints with the Commission.”

Hull v. ConvergeOne, Inc. (D. Minnesota 2021). “Retaliation – Utah Code Ann. § 34-28-19 As noted, Hull also asserts a retaliation claim under the UPWA, (id.”

Flink v. Renaissance Academy (D. Utah 2022). “§ 34-28-19. But UPWA does not apply to “the state, or to any county, incorporated city or town, or other political subdivision.”

— Utah Code § 34-28-19(2) — 1 case

Parkdale Care Ctr. v. Frandsen, 837 P.2d 989 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). “They alleged their *991 dismissals violated Utah Code Ann. § 34-28-19 (1) (Supp.1991), which prohibits an employer from discharging an employee in retaliation for filing complaints with the Commission.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.