PROVO, Utah — The Utah Court of Appeals upheld the firing of a former Provo police officer that followed a sexual harassment investigation.
In an opinion released Thursday, the court declined to disturb a decision by the Provo City Civil Service Commission to uphold Nisha King's termination from the Provo Police Department. King argued that investigation by the Commission into two instances of sexual harassment followed Provo City's internal policies instead of the internal policies of the Provo Police Department. The court ruled that the decision was backed by "substantial evidence."
The initial investigation began in July 2022, when two officers reported an incident where, while tasked with moving flags from the Provo mayor's old office to a new city building, King held up two round flag stands to her chest making a joke that made them "awkward and uncomfortable.” The report was corroborated by video and audio evidence.
The investigation was assigned to the city's human resources director, who later learned of a separate incident that took place about two months prior, where King inappropriately touched a victim services program coordinator while they were washing a dish in a break room. The victim told the director they didn't report the incident out of fear of retaliation, but did tell other officers. This led to King being placed on administrative leave.
Both the human resources director and the chief of Provo Police conducted separate interviews with King, where she denied the allegations. The director noted how during the interview, King was able to recall minor details shown in the video of the flag incident, but was unable to recall her own actions.
The following August, Ogden City Police conducted an investigation into the touching incident. This was shortly before a pre-termination hearing, where the director said he “found it very difficult to believe that [King] was able to remember all other aspects” of the flag incident.
On August 17, King was formally terminated from the Provo City Police, with the chief citing both incidents. The chief particularly noted how King's " dishonesty in lying about [the flag incident] warranted termination." Later on in the month, Ogden Police concluded their investigation, with the Weber County Attorney's Office declining to prosecute King due to insufficient evidence.
King appealed the termination to the Commission, arguing that the investigations should have been conducted in accordance to Provo City Police's internal policy, which would have granted her additional protections, including access to evidence obtained during the investigation.
The Commission held a hearing in March 2023, where they heard from King, the Chief, the director, as well as the officers and city employees involved in the two incidents. After the video of the flag incident was played, King was asked to explain her actions.
“I clearly made the statements that I made," King said during the hearing. "And you can see the motions that I made in the video, and I—I’m not going to deny that.”
King went on to insist that she did not lie to the director or the chief during the prior interviews.
The Commission affirmed the termination, citing that the Provo City policy applied during the investigation applied to all city employees, including police officers. They also noted both the evidence gathered and King's conduct during the investigation as additional reasoning.
It was then that King asked the courts for a judicial review of the decision. She argued that the Commission abused its discretion when following the city's policy instead of the the police departments, specifically citing the Utah Administrative Procedures Act.
However, the court ruled that the statute doesn't apply in this particular case.
"A civil service commission 'is a local, municipal tribunal of limited jurisdiction' that 'is neither a court of law nor a state administrative agency subject to [UAPA],'" writes Judge Amy Oliver, who authored the court opinion. "Thus, King’s reliance on UAPA... is misplaced for a challenge to a municipal tribunal’s action."
When looking over how the police department's internal policy would have affording King additional protections, the court ruled that the outcome would have been largely the same due to the evidence.
"Supposing that Provo should have followed [the police policy]... we see no material difference they would have made to the outcome of the proceeding," Oliver writes. "[King] was aware there was video footage of her making the comment about the flag stands that she claimed not to recall, so whether King was provided an opportunity to view the video prior to or during her interviews is immaterial."
