Former Provo police sergeant loses sexual harassment appeal

PROVO, Utah – The Utah Court of Appeals upheld the firing of a former Provo police officer following a sexual harassment investigation.

In an opinion released Thursday, the court declined to overturn a decision by the City of Provo Civil Service Commission to uphold the firing of Nisha King from the Provo Police Department. King argued that the commission’s investigation into two sexual harassment cases complied with the City of Provo’s internal policies, not the Provo Police Department’s internal policies. The court ruled that the decision was supported by “substantial evidence.”

The initial investigation began in July 2022 when two officers reported an incident in which King, while assigned to move flags from the old Provo mayor’s office to a new city building, held two round flag stands to her chest and made a joke that made her “uncomfortable and uncomfortable.” The report was corroborated by video and audio evidence.

The investigation was turned over to the city’s human resources director, who later learned of another incident that had occurred about two months earlier. King had inappropriately touched a victim assistance program coordinator while she was washing dishes in a break room. The victim told the director that they had not reported the incident for fear of retaliation, but had told other officers about it. This led to King being placed on leave.

Both the human resources director and the Provo police chief conducted separate interviews with King, in which she denied the allegations. The chief noted that during the interview, King was able to recall minor details seen 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, just before a pre-termination hearing where the principal said he “found it very difficult to believe that [King] could remember all other aspects” of the flag incident.

On August 17, King was officially fired from the Provo City Police Department, with the chief citing both incidents. The chief specifically noted how King’s “dishonesty by [the flag incident] justified termination.” Later that month, Ogden police closed their investigation, with the Weber County District Attorney’s Office declining to charge King because there was insufficient evidence.

King appealed the dismissal of her case to the commission, arguing that the investigation should have been conducted in accordance with Provo City Police’s internal policy, which would have afforded her additional protections, including access to evidence obtained during the investigation.

The commission held a hearing in March 2023, where it heard from King, the chief, the director, and 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 made the statements that I made clear and explicit,” King said during the hearing. “And you can see the movements that I made on the video, and I – I’m not going to deny that.”

King continued to insist that she had not lied to the director or the chief during previous interrogations.

The commission upheld the termination, citing that the City of Provo’s policy in effect during the investigation applied to all city employees, including police officers. It also cited the evidence collected and King’s conduct during the investigation as additional justification.

King then asked the courts for judicial review of the decision, arguing that the commission abused its discretion by following city policy rather than police department policy, specifically citing the Utah Administrative Procedures Act.

However, the court ruled that the law was not applicable in this particular case.

“A Public Service Commission is a local, municipal tribunal with limited jurisdiction, which is neither a court nor a State administrative agency, and [UAPA]’,” wrote Judge Amy Oliver, who wrote the ruling. “Thus, King’s reliance on UAPA … is improper to challenge a municipal court’s decision.”

When considering how the police department’s internal policies would have provided King with additional protection, the court found that, based on the evidence available, the result would have been largely the same.

“Suppose Provo had followed [the police policy]”… we see no significant difference they would have made to the outcome of the case,” writes Oliver. “[King] was aware that there was videotape of her making her remark about the flag stands, which she said she could not remember. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether King had an opportunity to view the video before or during her interviews.”