Court hearing Hatch Act case

The Utah Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the case of a state employee who was fired for running for a seat in the Utah Legislature after he was told his department's policy precluded running for public office.

Brent Hughes claims he was unfairly fired by the Utah Department of Human Services, where he worked as a collection/compliance supervisor for the Office of Recovery Services. He had worked for the department since 1979.

State and federal laws, under the Hatch Act, preclude state employees who work under a federally funded program from running for public office. The purpose of the act was to prevent federal funds from being misused through local politics. State supervisors also cannot pressure their employees into political involvement.

Under the Hatch Act, a state department could potentially lose its federal funding if found in violation.

According to briefs filed with the Utah Supreme Court, Hughes filed candidacy papers for District 20 of the Utah House of Representatives on March 17, 2004. Later his managers learned of his candidacy and warned Hughes of the law and policy. Hughes was given one week to drop his candidacy or resign. Hughes did neither. On June 1, 2004, the Department of Human Services notified Hughes it intended to fire him and did so on June 18.

Hughes' attorney, Phillip Dyer, pointed out that four other Department of Human Services employees had ran for public office without being terminated and that one was asked to resign only after he was elected to the state Senate.

The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the state's decision and ordered that Hughes be reinstated. Since that time, the state has asked the Utah Supreme Court to hear the case. Hughes remained on paid leave pending the court's ruling.

During oral arguments Tuesday, Assistant Utah Attorney General J. Clifford Petersen said faced with the prospect of losing federal funding for the Office of Recovery Services, the state was justified in firing Hughes. Petersen said the state didn't immediately fire Hughes but was willing to work with him to resolve the issue.

Dyer countered that the Hatch Act does not specifically require the state to take immediate action and that the state should have waited for the federal government to make an issue of Hughes' candidacy before taking action.

To this day, Dyer pointed out, the state has suffered no loss of federal funding due to Hughes.

Some justices said they struggled with the notion that the state shouldn't report a federal violation because there's no obligation to do so in writing.

Dyer said the court ran the risk of sending a message to state employees that they should not run for public office.

A written decision is expected to be published in the coming months.

Hughes, who is a Democrat, ran against Republican Ann Hardy in November 2004 and lost.

---

E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com