Question: Assume that the defendant in Case Problem is a law firm and the alleged harasser is an attorney practicing before the Utah bar. Assume further that the state Supreme Court has enacted a code of conduct covering attorneys licensed to practice in the state's courts and that this code contains a canon to the effect that all licensed Utah attorneys are required to live up to "commonly-recognized community standards of moral conduct"and to avoid acts of "moral turpitude." Should the Utah bar association act upon a complaint of misconduct and consider disbarring the attorney if the plaintiff files a complaint with its ethics panel? Should the court's ruling on the existence or nonexistence of a cause of action in the preceding case problem have any impact upon the ethics panel's decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings?
Case Problem: The plaintiff alleged that she had been fired for refusing to have sex with her supervisor. Unfortunately for her, because the firm she worked for was tiny, it did not fall under the jurisdiction of Title VII of the federal 1964 Civil Rights Act, which covers employers with at least fifteen workers. Her alternative, the Utah Antidiscrimination Act (UADA), also exempted small businesses, having adopted the federal law's fifteen employee threshold. She therefore contended that she should be entitled to sue under the state's common law tort of wrongful discharge on the basis of a public policy against sexual harassment reflected in the decisions interpreting both Title VII and the UADA. How should the court rule on her claim? Are there competing public policies at issue here? See Gottling v. P.R., Inc., 2002 WL 31055952, 2002 UT 95 (Utah Supreme).