Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate declines to override veto on anti-discrimination bill for lawful off-duty conduct
Summary
Senate considered overriding Governor Bangerter’s veto of Senate Bill 122, which would have barred employers from discriminating against lawful off-duty behavior (including smoking). The Senate vote was 16–13, failing to meet the two-thirds threshold to overturn the veto.
The Utah Senate on April 17, 1991 declined to override Governor Norman H. Bangerter’s veto of Senate Bill 122, a measure that would have limited employer discrimination against employees for lawful off-duty conduct. Sponsors characterized the bill as a privacy protection; opponents and the governor’s spokesperson argued it risked creating new grounds for litigation.
Senator Craig A. Peterson, the bill sponsor, described SB122 as protecting an individual’s right to lawful conduct in private, including use of lawful products such as alcohol and tobacco, so long as off-duty behavior did not affect job performance. He urged senators to “stay with the vote that you took during the session and ... continue to provide individuals the right of their privacy.”
Speaking for the governor, Mr. Scruggs said the governor vetoed the measure for two reasons: that it would “elevate as a civil right smoking,” and that the tobacco industry’s public-relations campaign was pressuring for legislation that could expand litigation exposure for employers. Mr. Scruggs warned that the bill would make employers defend termination decisions by proving off-duty conduct did not factor into dismissals.
Senators questioned the bill’s scope, whether it would protect only lawful private conduct, and whether existing statutory language already addresses the privacy concerns SB122 sought to remedy. Proponents pointed to language in the bill that exempted conduct that adversely affected job performance; opponents said the measure could create a new basis for lawsuits and that the state should not legislate protections that might be misused.
By roll call the Senate recorded 16 ayes and 13 nays on the motion to override the governor’s veto. Because an override requires two-thirds, the motion failed and the veto stood. Earlier in the session the Senate had briefly moved to place SB122 at the top of the reading calendar for consideration; that procedural motion had carried, but the substantive override did not.
The vote leaves SB122 vetoed. Senators discussed follow-up steps such as clearer drafting in the next session and consideration of intent language or narrower statutory protections to balance privacy with employer liability.
