Debra S. Retherford, Plaintiff and Appellant v. at & T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc.; Cathy Bateson…

Summary

The court held that Utah's anti-discrimination statute exclusively governed the public-policy retaliation claim, while the collective-bargaining agreement preempted or defeated the implied-contract and interference claims and part of the emotional-distress claim. It held that the remaining negligent-employment and purely personal emotional-distress claims were not barred by preemption or limitations, and that the alleged retaliatory conduct could satisfy the outrageousness element of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The judgment was therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. HOWE, Associate Chief Justice, concurred with a reservation that the court should not have decided whether both tort and just-cause contract claims could coexist.