Within days of news emerging that the U.S. Army determined former Utah National Guard commander Michael Turley’s “substantiated” misconduct was so egregious that the once two-star general’s retirement rank would be lieutenant colonel, he is suing Gov. Spencer Cox, alleging “wrongful termination.”
That demotion by the Army Grade Determination Review Board came two years after the Army’s own investigation found that Turley had “engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate,” according to Army spokesperson Cynthia O. Smith.
When the Army’s probe concluded, Cox announced in August 2023 that he was placing then-Maj. Gen. Michael Turley on paid administrative leave, having not received a copy of the Army’s report. Four days later, a news release from the governor’s office said the adjutant general had decided to retire — a move Turley now characterizes in the lawsuit as a termination.
Turley claims in the lawsuit, filed in federal court Monday, that accusations against him are “utterly baseless.”
Jon Pierpont, Cox’s chief of staff, the Utah Division of Human Resource Management and its Director John Barrand, and the Utah National Guard are also listed as defendants.
The former adjutant general filed a separate lawsuit Sunday, with similar claims, in Utah’s 3rd District Court.
The Army Grade Determination Review Board found that the rank of lieutenant colonel, according to Smith, was “the last grade in which [Turley] honorably served.”
A spokesperson for the Army said they could not comment on ongoing litigation. Neither the governor’s office nor the Utah attorney general’s office, which will likely represent state officials in the case, responded to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
After leaving his post, according to the federal complaint, Turley received a “heavily redacted” copy of the Army’s investigative report, which “purported to confirm a single allegation of misconduct.” The complaint claims the accusation was “patently false,” and Turley rescinded his resignation in September 2023, but the state did not accept it.
Turley further alleges state officials took steps to “improperly influence” the Army Grade Determination Review Board’s decision to knock his rank down to lieutenant colonel, although the complaint does not detail what those actions were.
Much of Turley’s lawsuit hinges on language in Utah law at the time of his supposed forced retirement, which said a governor-appointed adjutant general serves a six-year term unless they resign, become disabled or age out. They could also be terminated “for cause,” which Turley alleges they didn’t have.
Prompted by Turley’s case, the Utah Legislature changed the law in 2024 to eliminate the guaranteed six-year term, and include that an adjutant general — a member of the governor’s cabinet — “serves at the pleasure of the governor.” That law change was introduced by Turley’s predecessor, now Rep. Jefferson Burton, R-Salem.
Before the Army finished its investigation, the governor’s office had opened, then called off, two of its own inquiries into Turley’s behavior in 2021 and 2022 after receiving anonymous letters raising concerns and learning of the Army’s efforts, The Salt Lake Tribune previously reported.
Those decisions to dismiss the investigations are cited in Turley’s complaint.
“While discussions regarding General Turley’s potential resignation remained ongoing and without any new material information,” the court filing reads of Turley’s time on administrative leave, “Barrand called General Turley and indicated that the Governor’s Office had informed him that General Turley had 90 minutes to resign, or he would be terminated.”
It continues, “At the time Barrand issued this ultimatum, none of the relevant parties had a copy of the [Department of the Army Inspector General’s] report. Moreover, the State had not done any investigation after concluding that ‘there [was] no basis to find that the Adjutant General [had] engaged in inappropriate conduct.’”
Records obtained by The Tribune show both of Utah’s examinations of the adjutant general’s conduct largely centered on conversations with Turley.
The Tribune filed a Freedom of Information Act request for a copy of the Army’s investigative report in August 2023, the same day Cox announced he was placing Turley on paid administrative leave, but it has not yet been fulfilled.
During the first, the governor talked privately with Turley, asked him to survey his own troops about the guard’s climate, then dropped the inquiry. Turley did not tell Cox that he was being investigated by the Army, which he later said he omitted on the advice of his attorney.
Among the 70 troops who responded to that survey, according to results The Tribune obtained from the Utah National Guard, more than a quarter reported the presence of “sexually harassing behaviors,” while one in five said there were “racially harassing behaviors.”
In addition to Turley and his attorney, Barrand spoke to two employees of the Utah National Guard, which has several thousand members, as part of the second investigation. But he did not mention Turley, only asking “whether they were aware of any instances of disrespectful, unprofessional, or inappropriate behavior by any leader.”
The governor’s administration did not start asking troops about their top commander until the Army wrapped up its own report in 2023, and Cox announced Turley’s retirement.
Records from that probe indicate a half dozen guard members interviewed believed that Turley didn’t properly address sexual misconduct while he was allegedly engaged in such behavior himself, saying the discipline Turley handed down was lighter than is typically administered in the military.