Utah high court orders reimbursement of teacher’s costs for successful defense of sex abuse charges
Acor v. Salt Lake City School District, No. 20091014 (UT Jan. 28, 2011)
Abstract: The Utah Supreme Court has decided that the state’s Reimbursement Statute, which requires reimbursement of public employees for attorney fees and costs incurred in the successful defense of criminal charges, requires a school district to reimburse a teacher for the costs of her successful defense against charges of sexual abuse of a former student. Although the school district was privy to information, suppressed at the criminal trial, indicating that there was indeed an inppropriate relationship, the Reimbursement Statute requires a broad reading. ”[A]t a high level of generality, the criminal allegations in the information arose out of and were in connection with conduct within the scope of Acor’s employment and during the performance of her duties as a school teacher.”
Facts/Issues: In December 2005, Acor’s former student alleged that she and Acor had had a sexual relationship that began in 1995 when the student was in the seventh grade and lasted through the middle of the student’s senior year of high school. Acor admitted in an interview with the Assistant Superintendent that “there was a relationship and it was totally inappropriate.” Police investigators seized a journal from Acor’s residence that substantiated many of the student’s allegations. The District Attorney for Salt Lake County filed a criminal information (charging document similar to an indictment) on June 22, 2006, alleging that Acor sexually abused the student during her seventh grade year. At trial, Acor’s journal was excluded from evidence, as were her statements to the assistant superintendent. She was acquitted of the charges.
On May 17, 2007, Acor sought reimbursement from the School District of her costs and fees in defending the criminal action. The School District denied Acor’s request for reimbursement, and she brought this lawsuit. The district court granted the School District’s motion for summary judgment and denied Acor’s motion for partial summary judgment. Acor filed an interlocutory appeal to the supreme court.
Ruling/Rationale: The Utah Supreme Court started with the language of the state’s Reimbursement Statute: ”If a state grand jury indicts, or if an information is filed against, an officer or employee, in connection with or arising out of any act or omission of that officer or employee during the performance of the officer or employee’s duties, within the scope of the officer or employee’s employment, or under color of the officer or employee’s authority, and that indictment or information is quashed or dismissed or results in a judgment of acquittal, unless the indictment or information is quashed or dismissed upon application or motion of the prosecuting attorney, that officer or employee shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and court costs necessarily incurred in the defense of that indictment or information from the public entity, unless the officer or employee is found guilty of substantially the same misconduct that formed the basis for the indictment or information. UTAH CODE ANN. § 52-6-201(1).”
The School District argued that the statute should not apply because the evidence it had showed that the teacher was actually guilty of the crimes alleged, and clearly acted outside the scope of her duties as a district employee when engaging in the inappropriate conduct. The supreme court found, however, that under the Reimbursement Statute, the job-relatedness of a public employee’s conduct must be evaluated “at a high level of generality, without regard to the actual guilt or innocence of the charged party.” ”The Reimbursement Statute leaves no room for a court to question the propriety of an acquittal, however—much less an employee’s worthiness for reimbursement on the basis of an unspecified ‘inappropriate’ relationship,” explained the court. Because the statute’s exceptions (dismissal by the prosecuting attorney or conviction of substantially the same misconduct) were not met, the teacher was entitled to reimbursement.
Acor v. Salt Lake City School District, No. 20091014 (UT Jan. 28, 2011)
[Editor's Note: Thanks and kudos to Mark Walsh at Education Week's School Law Blog for noting the decision.]
