Opinion ID: 163868
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Claim Against Ms. Rowse

Text: 35 In their post-trial motion in the district court, the defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the claims against Ms. Rowse because the Whistleblower Act does not allow a cause of action against an individual, only the employer. Aplts' App. at 123 (Post-Trial Order). The district court rejected this argument, noting that the Whistleblower Act's definition of an employer includes `an agent of the employer.' Id. (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 67-21-2(4)). Therefore, the district court continued, this court holds that Plaintiff's cause of action against Defendant Rowse is brought against her in her official capacity and there are no statutory or other sound bases to vacate the jury award entered against her. Id. 36 On appeal, the defendants argue that because Ms. Youren did not file a separate notice of claim against Ms. Rowse, the district court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction over Ms. Youren's whistleblower claim against Ms. Rowse. We review issues of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. United States v. One Parcel Prop. Located at Lot 85, County Ridge, 100 F.3d 740, 742 (10th Cir.1996). The defendants are correct that in whistleblower suits involving a government entity, compliance with the notice requirements is jurisdictional. See generally Hall v. State Dep't of Corr., 24 P.3d 958, 966 (Utah 2001) (holding that dismissal of claims is proper in a whistleblower suit against a government entity when the plaintiff fails to adhere to notice requirements). 37 When a suit is brought against a school district and against school officials in their official capacity, the Utah Governmental Immunity Act requires only that the notice of the claim be served on the school district. Any person having a claim for injury against a governmental entity, or against its employee ... shall file a written notice of claim with the entity before maintaining an action. Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-11(1) (emphasis added). The notice of claim, even if against an employee, must be filed with the entity itself. 38 The defendants do not argue that notice to the school district was inadequate or untimely served, nor that the claim did not list Ms. Rowse. Therefore, the defendants' argument that because Ms. Youren did not file or serve her notice of claim on Ms. Rowse, there was no subject matter jurisdiction established over Ms. Youren's claim against Ms. Rowse, is baseless. Accordingly, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Youren's whistleblower claim against Ms. Rowse. 39