Utah Code § 57-21 § 57-21-10
Judicial election or formal adjudicative hearing.
Operative Text
Judicial election or formal adjudicative hearing. (1) (a) If, pursuant to Subsection 57-21-9(6) or (7)(b)(ii), the director issues a written determination, a party to the complaint may obtain de novo review of the determination by submitting a written request for a formal adjudicative hearing to be conducted by the commission's Division of Adjudication in accordance with Title 34A, Chapter 1, Part 3, Adjudicative Proceedings, to the director within 30 days after the day on which the director issues the determination. (b) If the director does not receive a timely request for review, the director's determination becomes the final order of the commission and is not subject to further agency action or direct judicial review. (2) If a party files a timely request for review pursuant to Subsection (1): (a) any party to the complaint may elect to have the de novo review take place in a civil action in the district court rather than in a formal adjudicative hearing with the Division of Adjudication by filing an election with the commission in accordance with rules established by the commission pursuant to Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, regarding the form and time period for the election; (b) the complainant shall file a complaint for review in the forum selected pursuant to Subsection (2)(a) within 30 days after the completion of the forum selection process; and (c) the commission shall determine whether the director's determination is supported by substantial evidence. (3) (a) The commission shall provide legal representation on behalf of the aggrieved person, including the filing of a complaint for review as required by Subsection (2)(b), in the de novo review proceeding, if: (i) in accordance with Subsection 57-21-9(7)(b)(ii), the director issued a written determination finding reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred, or was about to occur; and (ii) under Subsection (2)(c), the commission determines that the director's determination under 57-21-9(7)(b)(ii) is supported by substantial evidence. (b) An attorney who provides legal representation under Subsection (3)(a) shall consult with the parties in good faith and attempt to resolve the matter based upon a review of the facts, witnesses, evidence, and the likelihood of success. (c) Notwithstanding Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act, the commission's determination, under Subsection (2)(c), regarding the existence or nonexistence of substantial evidence to support the director's determination is not subject to further agency action or direct judicial review. (4) Upon timely application, an aggrieved person may intervene with respect to the issues to be determined in a formal adjudicative hearing or in a civil action brought under this section. (5) If a formal adjudicative hearing is elected: (a) the presiding officer shall commence the formal adjudicative hearing within 150 days after the day on which a request for review of the director's determination is filed, unless it is impracticable to do so; (b) the investigator who investigated the matter may not participate: (i) in the formal adjudicative hearing, except as a witness; or (ii) in the deliberations of the presiding officer; (c) any party to the complaint may file a written request to the Division of Adjudication for review of the presiding officer's order in accordance with Section 63G-4-301 and Title 34A, Chapter 1, Part 3, Adjudicative Proceedings; and (d) a final order of the commission under this section is subject to judicial review as provided in Section 63G-4-403 and Title 34A, Chapter 1, Part 3, Adjudicative Proceedings. (6) If a civil action is elected, the commission is barred from continuing or commencing any adjudicative proceeding in connection with the same claims under this chapter. (7) (a) The commission shall make final administrative disposition of the complaint alleging a discriminatory housing practice within one year after the complainant filed the complaint, unless it is impracticable to do so. (b) If the commission is unable to make final administrative disposition within the time period described in Subsection (7)(a), the commission shall notify the complainant, respondent, and any other interested party in writing of the reasons for the delay.
Utah Code Ann. § 57-21-10 establishes the process for reviewing a housing discrimination determination after the director of the relevant commission issues a written finding. A party who disagrees with the director's determination has 30 days to request a formal adjudicative hearing; if no timely request is made, the director's determination becomes final. Parties may also choose to have the review conducted as a civil action in district court rather than through the administrative hearing process, and the commission is generally expected to reach a final disposition within one year of the original complaint being filed.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under Utah Code Ann. § 57-21-10, a landlord or property manager named as a respondent in a housing discrimination complaint has the right to participate in the review process if the director issues a written determination. A compliant operator generally tracks the 30-day deadline for requesting a formal adjudicative hearing and understands that missing that window causes the director's determination to become a final, non-reviewable order. Operators also take note that any party—not just the complainant—may elect to shift the de novo review to district court, which changes the procedural forum for the entire matter.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Utah Code Ann. § 57-21-10 provides tenants and other aggrieved persons with meaningful review rights when a housing discrimination determination is issued. If the director finds reasonable cause to believe a discriminatory housing practice occurred and the commission determines that finding is supported by substantial evidence, the commission is required to provide legal representation to the aggrieved person in the de novo review proceeding. Tenants who believe their rights are at stake may also intervene in a formal adjudicative hearing or civil action under this section, and consulting a tenant-rights organization can help clarify which review path and timeline apply to a given situation.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated October 16, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
Rules and statutes cited by this regulation
References In
Rules and statutes that cite this regulation
Related Rules
Source Information
Use this in your app
Access this data programmatically via our API