When we think of summertime, we commonly think of warm weather, swimming at the local public pool, and grilling hamburgers outside with family and friends. Children are out of school, and families go on vacation. But for many high school, college, and graduate students, summer is a time for employment and internships.

Summer jobs typically last about three months, and their positions usually consist of food service, retail, construction, outdoor recreation roles, and office staff. These positions generally require less credentials and are very interchangeable, allowing employers to fire and hire new summer employees quickly and efficiently. This reality raises a common question: even though I am only employed for a short time, can my seasonal employer fire me without notice?

At-Will Employment: What It Means for Seasonal Jobs in Utah

The short answer is yes, to a certain extent. In Utah, like every other state except Montana, most employees are considered at-will, unless this arrangement is altered by a written or implied agreement that changes it. Utah law presumes that an employment agreement that does not have a specified term of duration is at-will. This means employers may fire employees “for any reason, or no reason at all, at any time.” The at-will doctrine benefits employees the ability to quit their job at any time and for any reason. However, this freedom also comes at a cost. Employers may also fire their employees for any reason or for no reason at all at any time.

Do At-Will Employees Have Any Legal Protections?

Absolutely. Utah law further clarifies that even if an employee is at-will, an employer may fire an employee “without extending any procedural safeguards to an employee, except as required by law.”

3 Legal Exceptions to At-Will Termination for Seasonal Employees

Agreements Can Override At-Will Employment

Seasonal employee can protect themselves from a termination without notice if their employer violates an agreement between the parties that the employee cannot be fired without cause or without notice. If an employer promises, either directly or through conduct, that an employee cannot be fired without cause or notice, this may overcome the at-will presumption.

These agreements can be created during the interview process, at the onset of employment, or even during the employment. Evidence of these agreements may be found in employment manuals, oral agreements, and all circumstances of the relationship which demonstrate the intent to terminate only for cause or to continue employment for a specified period.

Though it may be harder to prove an implied agreement than an written agreement, employees can look to the conduct of their employer, personnel policies, trade or industry practices, or other circumstances to show that their employer made such a promise. It is important to remember, however, that an implied-in-fact promise cannot go against a written contract term.

If the provisions of your seasonal employment contained language stating that you cannot be fired without just cause or notice, or if your employer impliedly informed you of the same, you may have an actionable claim against your employer if you were fired without notice or cause.

Termination in Violation of State or Federal Law

Another protection arises if the termination violates state or federal statutes. Every non-federal employee or prospect employee, no matter how long they have been or will be tenured, is protected from discriminatory actions by their employer.

Relevant statutes include:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (protecting against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin);
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (protecting against discrimination on the basis of disability); and
• Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) (protecting non-federal employees and prospect employees 40 years or older from discrimination on the basis of age).

This means that, if you have reason to believe that your seasonal employer fired you for one of the reasons stated above, you may have an actionable claim against them.

Violations of Clear and Substantial Public Policy

Finally, seasonal employees can be protected from a fire without notice if their firing was a clear violation of a substantial public policy. Courts evaluate public policy exceptions based on:

• Whether the rule or policy comes from clear and reliable sources, like state laws, the state constitution, or past court decisions.
• Whether the rule is meant to protect the public in general, not just the specific employer or employee involved.
• Whether there are other important rules or interests that outweigh this rule.

Examples of Public Policy Violations

Refusal to Commit Illegal Acts

The Utah Supreme Court, as a general proposition, stated that persons who are terminated from their employment because they refuse to engage in illegal activities that contravene the clear and substantial public policy of the state of Utah can be actionable against their employer. A basic example of this is if your employer fires you for refusing to put a hazardous or harmful item in a food product that the employer is selling to customers. As such an action would violate Utah Code Ann. § 4-5-401, an employee has a right to refuse to obey the command without fear of retaliation.

Exercising Legal Rights

Employees who get fired for exercising legal rights such as serving jury duty, taking family leave, medical leave, or whistleblowing are also considered violations of public policy. If you have reason to believe that your seasonal employer has fired you without notice for any of these reasons, you may be entitled to damages.

Know Your Rights as a Seasonal Employee in Utah

Seasonal jobs are valuable opportunities for students and young professionals. These positions appear, and generally are, more replaceable than most full-time careers. Regardless, employers must ensure that they do not terminate their seasonal employees for unlawful reasons. Firing someone without notice may be legal under Utah’s at-will doctrine, but protections exist against discriminatory, retaliatory, or otherwise unlawful terminations.

Protect Your Rights if You Have Been Wrongfully Terminated

If you believe you were wrongfully terminated from your seasonal job, consult with an employment law attorney to understand your rights. At Christensen & Jensen, we help employees navigate these legal questions and protect their interests.

Citations:

1. Ryan v. Dan’s Food Stores, Inc., 972 P.2d 395, 400 (Utah Sup.Ct. 1998).
2. Id. (quoting Fox v. MCI Communications Corp., 931 P.2d 857, 859 (Utah 1997)) (emphasis added).
3. Berube v. Fashion Centre, 771 P.2d 1033, 1044 (Utah Sup.Ct. 1989).
4. Id.
5. Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2015 UT 83, ¶14-15, 359 P.3d 614 (Sup.Ct.).
6. Pang v. Int’l Document Servs., 2015 UT 63, ¶27, 356 P.3d 1190 (Sup.Ct.).

When the Courtroom Goes Viral

Over the past two decades, digital media has permeated nearly every facet of life, including the courtroom. Once geographically secluded, legal proceedings now unfold inside and outside the courtroom on a global stage through livestreams, TikTok, Reddit, and YouTube.

Public fascination with the justice system is not new. Since the 1960s, when television emerged, broadcasters brought major legal and cultural events, such as the assassinations of MLK Jr. and Malcolm X, into American living rooms.1 Later, media coverage of serial killers like Ted Bundy cemented true crime as a national obsession.  In recent years, this interest has evolved into a broader cultural fixation with real-life courtroom drama. As podcasts, docuseries, and livestreamed trials have surged in popularity, civil and criminal trials now draw audiences that extend far beyond the legal community.

This evolution raises critical questions about the shifting relationship between the law and culture. Live-streamed hearings, viral tweet threads, and Reddit forums have expanded access to the legal process, but they have also blurred the boundary between the structured formality of courtroom proceedings and the informal nature of online discourse. Among all areas of civil law, torts have undergone particularly visible transformations. Contrary to what I believed in my first year of law school, torts are not desserts. They are civil wrongs that cause someone to suffer, and they come in many varieties. However, the infiltration of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) into popular culture is especially compelling.

Defamation in the Age of Algorithms and Influence

The legal contours of defamation, which are traditionally defined as the communication of a false statement that harms another’s reputation, remain rooted in centuries-old jurisprudence. However, the digital age has dramatically reshaped the nature of reputational injury. Harm still arises through lost professional opportunities, but it now manifests in myriad other ways too, like viral memes, mass online ridicule, and algorithmic amplification or distortion. Modern defamation lawsuits now involve questions like:

• How do courts qualify damages when someone loses brand deals but gains millions in followers?
• What happens when the narrative about a person online vastly diverges from the courtroom record?

The legal threshold for a successful defamation claim, especially involving public figures, is extraordinarily high. Plaintiffs must prove not only that a false statement harmed their reputation, but also that the speaker acted with “actual malice,” which is a demanding standard that requires proof of knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.2 This far exceeds everyday notions of spite or misinformation. Consequently, many viewers who interpret these cases through a true crime lens overlook the complex doctrinal hurdles that separate a salacious allegation from a legally compensable injury. Nevertheless, emotional distress, reputational fallout, and the ethics of storytelling are no longer abstract doctrinal concerns; instead, they now dominate the broader cultural conversation.

Case in Point: Depp v. Heard

Few cases illustrate this shift more vividly than Depp v. Heard. Actor Johnny Depp initiated the defamation suit against his former partner, actress Amber Heard, after she published an op-ed in The Washington Post. What began as a legal dispute over reputational harm quickly evolved into a global cultural event. Although the formal legal issues at stake centered on the boundaries of the First Amendment and the elements of defamation, the trial transformed into a hybrid of celebrity drama, legal analysis, and ideological conflict. Millions watched livestreams and participated in real-time commentary. Ultimately, it provided a real-life demonstration of how digital media influences public opinion, litigation strategy and cultural narratives (particularly those concerning #MeToo and free speech).

The Rise of IIED and the Cultural Weight of Trauma

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is another tort gaining traction in public discourse. This cause of action requires proof that the defendant engaged in conduct so extreme and outrageous that it exceeded all bounds of decency, and that conduct caused severe emotional distress. In a culture increasingly attuned to psychological harm and personal trauma, this tort has taken on new resonance.

Another Case in Point: The Tinder Swindler

In the documentary called The Tinder Swindler, filmmakers recount the stories of women who were unknowingly emotionally and financially manipulated. Although the conduct depicted does not always rise to criminal fraud, it sparked widespread debate over whether civil remedies like IIED might apply. These cultural narratives heighten awareness of emotional injury, but they also risk distorting public expectations of the law. IIED does not apply to mere offense or embarrassment; it requires truly outrageous behavior and emotional distress of a medically significant nature.3 As public conversations about trauma evolve, courts and legislatures must balance cultural awareness against the need to preserve doctrinal integrity.

From Law School to Livestream: Evolving Legal Education and Practice

The dramatization of legal issues is not new. Films like The Social Network and Legally Blonde turned civil wrongs into entertainment long before a TikTok algorithm took over. But today’s audiences engage with the law in fundamentally different ways, perhaps because viewers are no longer passive observers. TikTok users break down courtroom exchanges; Reddit posters dissect legal findings line by line; YouTube creators monetize legal commentary for their subscribers. The law is no longer simply watched; rather, it is analyzed, reinterpreted, and performed in real time.

This convergence of law and culture raises pressing questions for the legal community:

• What does it mean to represent a client whose legal claims are litigated simultaneously in court and on social media?

These questions have no simple answers, but they underscore the evolving role of the lawyer, who is not merely a legal advisor, but also a public communicator and an educator. In fact, a lawyer must now navigate both the formal demands of legal procedure and the informal forces of digital media, including hashtags, headlines, and the unrelenting tide of online opinion, to zealously represent their client.

Lawyers as Educators in the Digital Age

Legal education must keep pace with the digital era. Torts courses should expand beyond traditional doctrines to address emerging harms, such as cyber harassment and reputational algorithmic suppression. Doctrinal clarity remains essential, but educators must pair it with a deeper understanding of how tort law functions within broader cultural and technological ecosystems.

The viral life of torts presents a unique opportunity: legal education can now reach the public in real time. When terms like “actual malice” or “outrageous conduct” trend on Twitter, they create teachable moments. Legal scholars and practitioners can step into those moments by:

In this way, cultural engagement does not trivialize the law. Instead, it reinforces legal literacy and expands public understanding of foundational legal concepts. can serve as a powerful tool for legal literacy rather than trivialization of the law.

Conclusion: Law, Culture, and the Future of Torts

Tort law no longer confines itself to classrooms or courtrooms. It now lives in comment sections, podcasts, and digital storytelling. Celebrity trials and streaming documentaries have turned torts into cultural touchstones by shaping and being shaped by the stories that surround them. For law students and practicing lawyers alike, this cultural entanglement is essential to the modern practice of law.

More broadly, the shifting terrain of tort law offers a revealing lens into how society defines harm, assigns blame, and seeks justice. If the current era teaches us anything, it’s that the law does not, and should not, stand immune from cultural currents. As torts go viral, they challenge us examine how legal norms operate in a world saturated with stories, symbols, and screens.

But this responsibility doesn’t rest on lawyers alone. The public, too, plays a role in shaping a more informed legal culture. So, keep asking questions, keep reading, and stay engaged, whether it’s by following emerging cases, exploring legal commentary, or diving into resources like these blogs featured on Christensen & Jensen. After all, an informed public is not just a passive audience to the law; it’s an active participant in shaping the future of justice.

Citations:
[1] Alex McDonald. An American Obsession: The Evolving Genre of True Crime (Nov. 18, 2022) The Politic.
[2] The United States Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment requires the standard of fault to be actual malice for claims involving public officials, see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), and public figures, see Curtis Publ’g Co. v. Butts, 389 U.S. 889 (1967).
[3] Samms v. Eccles, 11 Utah 2d 289, 358 P.2d 344 (1961); White v. Blackburn, 787 P.2d 1315 (Utah Ct. App. 1990); Nelson v. Target Corporation, 334 P.3d 1010 (Utah App. 2014); Anderson Development Company v. Tobias, et al, 116 P.3d 323 (Utah 2005)

Salt Lake City, UT — The Utah Court of Appeals upheld a $2 million jury verdict for Amy Herzog, who suffered a serious hand injury during a Vail Resorts-sponsored bowling event.

The injury occurred in 2022 at the company-sponsored bowling party in Kimball Junction. While Herzog, an employee of the bowling alley, was retrieving a stuck bowling ball, a Vail Resorts employee did a reckless 360-degree spin move and released a ball in the adjacent lane. The ball crossed into Herzog’s Lane and struck her left hand, causing severe injuries requiring three surgeries. She has permanently lost much of the function in her hand.

A jury in Utah’s Third District Court found the employee and his employer, Vail Resorts, responsible. The jury awarded over $2 million in damages, more than twice the amount Herzog’s attorneys had requested. The event had been paid for using a Vail Resorts company credit card, and the jury concluded the company was liable for its employee’s conduct.

Vail Resorts appealed the verdict, arguing the damages were excessive and that it was entitled to a new trial. The Appeals Court rejected those claims, finding that the original verdict was well-supported by the evidence.

“This is a meaningful result for Ms. Herzog and a strong affirmation of the jury’s decision,” said Herzog’s Attorney, William J. Hansen. “She has endured a life-changing injury, and we’re proud to have helped her obtain justice.”

It is not yet known whether Vail Resorts will appeal to the Utah Supreme Court.

A link to the full Court of Appeals opinion is available here.

Christensen & Jensen is excited to welcome back Anna Christiansen, an experienced attorney specializing in civil litigation, civil rights, insurance defense, and personal injury.

A former member of our firm, Anna returns with expanded expertise and a proven track record of success. Her ability to handle complex cases and advocate for clients makes her a valuable asset to our team.

We’re glad to have her back and look forward to her continued impact. Join us in welcoming Anna!

For more information, contact us at cjlaw.com

About Christensen & Jensen

Christensen & Jensen, P.C., founded in 1949, is a full-service law firm based in Salt Lake City that is dedicated to putting clients first in all aspects of legal advocacy. The firm consistently achieves landmark victories and develops innovative legal strategies that prioritize client needs and goals. As a member of ALFA International, Christensen & Jensen leverages local expertise and global resources to deliver high-quality, cost-effective legal solutions tailored to each client.