Salt Lake City School District

Supreme Court of Utah · 2011 · Torts

2011 UT 8 (2011)

Updated July 19, 2026

tortsstatutory reimbursementscope of employmentunder color of authorityUtah Code section 52-6-201reimbursement of attorney feespublic employeeacquittal

Facts

Shelly Acor was a teacher in the Salt Lake City School District, and a former student alleged that Acor had sexually abused her beginning when the student was in seventh grade. The allegations involved conduct mostly on school grounds, during school hours, and in the context of Acor's role as teacher and the student's role as student aide, though one count alleged conduct at a public park. Acor was charged by criminal information with three counts of sexual abuse of a child and was acquitted on all charges. She then sought reimbursement of her defense fees and costs from the School District under Utah Code section 52-6-201, but the District denied reimbursement and argued that evidence outside the criminal verdict showed she had an inappropriate relationship outside the scope of employment.

Issue

When a public employee is acquitted of criminal charges, may a court deny reimbursement under Utah Code section 52-6-201 by independently concluding in the later civil action that the employee actually engaged in wrongful conduct outside the scope of employment or not under color of authority? More specifically, how should the statute's employment-relatedness requirement be evaluated?

Rule

Under Utah Code section 52-6-201, a public employee who is acquitted of criminal charges is entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and court costs when the charges were in connection with or arose out of acts or omissions during the performance of duties, within the scope of employment, or under color of authority, unless a statutory exception applies. The employment-relatedness inquiry is conducted at a high level of generality based on the time, place, and nature of the acts giving rise to the charges, and the employee's acquittal may not be undermined by relitigating guilt in the civil reimbursement action.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez, a public high school counselor in Tucson, was charged by information with falsifying attendance records to help a student athlete remain eligible. The alleged acts occurred in her office during school hours, and a jury acquitted her on all counts. The school district later denied her request for reimbursement, arguing that internal emails prove she really altered the records for personal reasons.

Under the governing rule, is Nina most likely entitled to reimbursement of her reasonable defense costs, assuming no statutory exception applies?

Explanation. The statute creates a general entitlement to reimbursement when employment-related criminal charges end in acquittal, subject only to the stated exceptions. The employment-relatedness inquiry is conducted at a high level of generality based on the time, place, and nature of the acts giving rise to the charges. Because the alleged conduct occurred in Nina's office during school hours in the course of handling student records, the charges are connected with her employment. The district cannot defeat reimbursement by using civil litigation to prove she was actually guilty despite the acquittal. (Derived from Salt Lake City School District (2011).)