Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent Nancy Garduno was ineligible for unemployment benefits because her employer terminated her for misconduct connected with her employment. The Cabinet Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions ordered respondent to repay $11,256 in overpaid unemployment benefits. A majority of the Court of Appeals held that due process precluded the Department from collecting the overpaid unemployment benefits from respondent where she received benefits payments during the ongoing appeals process because she was unaware of her employer’s appeal for over 100 days. The Supreme Court reversed, however, finding that respondent’s procedural due process rights were not violated because the Department provided respondent with constitutionally adequate procedural protections prior to terminating her benefits and ordering her to reimburse the Department for the overpaid benefits. View "N.M. Dep't of Workforce Solutions v. Garduno" on Justia Law

Appellee Emily Kane ran for elective office while she was employed at the Albuquerque Fire Department (the AFD) as a captain. Article X, Section 3 of the Charter of the City of Albuquerque (1989), and the City of Albuquerque Personnel Rules and Regulations Section 311.3 (2001), prohibit city employees from holding elective office. Kane sought injunctive relief to allow her to hold elective office while retaining her employment with the AFD. She argued that the employment regulations of the City of Albuquerque (the City) violated: (1) the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; (2) Article VII, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution; and (3) Section 10-7F-9 of the Hazardous Duty Officers' Employer-Employee Relations Act (the HDOA). The district court granted Kane the relief she sought, but the Supreme Court reversed. The Court found the City's employment regulations did not violate the First Amendment because they regulated conflicts of interest, and they were therefore rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of promoting administrative efficiency. In addition, the Court held these regulations did not violate Article VII, Section 2 because they constituted conditions of employment that did not add additional qualifications to elective public office. Finally, the City's employment regulations were not preempted by Section 10-7F-9 because personnel rules touched issues of local rather than general concern, and they were within the City's authority to promulgate. View "Kane v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

This appeal centered on the second of two qui tam actions filed by former New Mexico Education Retirement Board ("ERB") Chief Investment Officer Frank Foy and his wife Suzanne ("Foys"), attacking the management of the investment portfolios of the ERB and of the New Mexico State Investment Council ("SIC"). The Foys "allege that Defendants, who include Wall Street firms and investment advisors, as well as high-ranking state officials, executed fraudulent schemes that led to the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars at the expense of the [SIC] and the [ERB]. Specifically, the issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the retroactive application of the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 44-9-1 to -14 (2007) ("FATA") violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and New Mexico Constitutions. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that FATA was constitutional. The treble damages under FATA were predominantly compensatory and could be applied retroactively to conduct that occurred prior to its effective date. The Court declined to resolve the issue of whether the civil penalties awarded under FATA were punitive and violated ex post facto principles until there was a definitive amount awarded. View "New Mexico ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether the Director of the Labor Relations Division of the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions (DWS) was in violation of the Public Works Minimum Wage Act for failing to set prevailing wage rates and prevailing fringe benefit rates for public works projects in accordance with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). Petitioner New Mexico Building and Construction Trades Council represented the interests of thousands of New Mexico employees working on public works projects throughout the State. Petitioners International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 611 and Sheet Metal Workers Local 49 were affiliated members of the Council. The Unions sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Director to set prevailing wage and prevailing benefit rates for public works projects in accordance with rates specified in CBAs in or near a project’s locality, as required by Section 13-4-11(B) of the Act. This case was the second time the New Mexico Building and Construction Trades Council has petitioned the Supreme Court for mandamus in the matter of DWS compliance with Section 13-4-11(B): in June 2011 the Court denied a petition for writ of mandamus in order to give the Secretary “four or five months” to set prevailing wage and prevailing benefit rates under the Act as amended in 2009. In this case, the issue was again whether the Director failed to set prevailing wage rates and prevailing fringe benefit rates for public works projects in accordance with the applicable CBAs. After review, the Supreme Court held that under the Act, the Director had a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to set the same prevailing wage and prevailing benefit rates as those negotiated in applicable CBAs and that the Director’s failure to do so violated the Act. The Court therefore issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Director to comply with the Act and set rates in accordance with CBAs as required. View "N.M. Bldg. and Constr. Trades Council v. Dean" on Justia Law

Attorney Daniel Faber filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of three assistant attorneys who alleged alleging gender discrimination in connection with their salaries. The Attorney General filed a motion to stay litigation pending resolution of his motion to dismiss the complaint based on an immunity defense. The federal district court entered a memorandum opinion and order granting the Attorney General’s motion to stay all proceedings, including discovery; the stay was lifted a few months later. Prior to lifting of the stay, Faber filed an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request in his own name seeking employment data for every attorney who had been employed by the Attorney General’s Office since January 1987. The records custodian of the Attorney General’s Office denied the IPRA request, stating that “[t]his request is being denied as these records involve a current lawsuit and appear to circumvent the discovery process and the current Order Staying Discovery (attached).” Faber filed a complaint for damages and a petition for writ of mandamus in the state district court against the Attorney General alleging that his IPRA request had been wrongfully denied. The state district court found that the stay of discovery entered by the federal court did not preempt the statutory rights granted to New Mexico citizens by IPRA, and that the Attorney General violated IPRA by denying Faber’s request. The court also issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Attorney General to comply and ruled that damages would be considered at a later date. Faber subsequently moved for an award of damages. The state district court awarded damages of $10 per day from the date of the wrongful denial to the date the stay was lifted and thereafter “damages of $100 per day until the records are provided,” and $257.19 in costs to Faber. The Attorney General appealed the state district court’s award of damages. The determination of the IPRA violation was not at issue on appeal. The issue in this case focused on what type of damages were authorized by the Legislature in Section 14-2-13 12(D). The Supreme Court held that Section 14-2-12(D) permitted compensatory or actual damages because the plain language, purpose, and history of IPRA indicated that neither punitive nor statutory damages were intended by the Legislature. The Court also held that Faber was not eligible for nominal damages. View "Farber v. King" on Justia Law

Three former New Mexico State employees were denied unemployment compensation benefits by the Department of Workforce Solutions because they were in positions designated as "a major nontenured policy-making or advisory position." The Supreme Court reversed the Department's decision, because after review, it concluded that the three positions in questions in these cases were not indeed designated as major nontentured policy-making or advisory positions. View "Perez v. N.M. Dep't of Workforce Solutions" on Justia Law

Respondent Dr. Emre Yedidag was an employee-physician for Roswell Clinic Corp. and Roswell Hospital Corp. (Eastern New Mexico Medical Center). During a peer review of another Eastern employee-physician, Dr. Akbar Ali, Dr. Yedidag questioned Dr. Ali because Dr. Ali was not forthcoming concerning his role in a patient's death. Members of Eastern's executive team reported the exchange to the hospital administration, which led to the subsequent termination of Dr. Yedidag's employment for unprofessional conduct. Dr. Yedidag then filed a complaint against Eastern for utilizing confidential peer review information to justify his termination. A jury determined that Eastern violated the New Mexico Review Organization Immunity Act (ROIA), and concluded that this violation proximately caused Dr. Yedidag's damages. The jury also concluded that Eastern breached its employment contract with Dr. Yedidag by terminating him for his participation in a peer review. The jury awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict. Eastern appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing: (1) ROIA did not create a private cause of action; (2) ROIA did not create an implied promise that Dr. Yedidag would not suffer adverse consequences incident to his participation in the peer review process; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the jury's award of punitive damages. Finding no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Yedidag v. Roswell Clinic Corp." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review stemmed from a worker's compensation claim. Specifically, the issue the Court had to determine was whether a “wet floor” sign was a safety device and whether a nurse who slips on a recently mopped floor at work is entitled to a 10% increase in benefits when a “wet floor” sign was not posted near a mopped floor. The Court held that a “wet floor” sign is a safety device and that the nurse’s injury resulted from the negligence of the employer in failing to supply reasonable safety devices in general use. View "Benavides v. Eastern N.M. Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

While working for Vista Care (Employer), appellant Sherrie Fowler suffered a back injury. Appellant began receiving TTD and subsequently underwent back surgery. Several years later, a physician determined that appellant reached maximum medical improvement (MMI). This case began when appellant filed a complaint with the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA) in 2010, for reinstatement of her TTD benefits and for an increase in her PPD rating. The Court of Appeals held that the Act limited appellant's eligibility for TTD benefits to 700 weeks of benefits and reversed a contrary decision of the Workers’ Compensation Administration judge. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that the Act imposed no such limitation; TTD benefits are payable during any period of total disability for the remainder of a worker’s life. View "Fowler v. Vista Care" on Justia Law

Petitioners were retired teachers, professors and other public education employees who sought a writ of mandamus against the New Mexico Education Retirement Board (ERB). They sought to compel the ERB to pay them an annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to their retirement benefits, calculated according to the statutes “in effect at the time of Petitioners’ date of maturity of their rights,” instead of the current statutes as recently modified by the Legislature. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the New Mexico Constitution affords Retirees no such right, and therefore denied the writ of mandamus. View "Bartlett v. Cameron" on Justia Law