This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Two former employees of the Penasco Independent School District raised concerns about the conduct of a newly-hired superintendent. Their communications focused on the impact of the superintendent's actions on the staff and students of the school district (paras 1 and 5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Taos County: A jury verdict held the Board of Education of the Penasco Independent School District liable for its actions against the two former employees (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the plaintiffs' complaints were for the public benefit rather than personal interests. They also contended that the recent case of Lerma v. State should not apply retroactively and that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages (paras 2-4).
- Plaintiffs: Supported the jury's verdict, arguing that their communications were protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act and were not merely personal grievances (paras 1 and 5).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that the plaintiffs' communications were protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act?
- Should the case of Lerma v. State apply retroactively to this case?
- Did the plaintiffs fail to mitigate their damages?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs (paras 1 and 8).
Reasons
Per Ives J. (Attrep C.J. and Hanisee J. concurring):
The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, noting that the communications by the plaintiffs were focused on the impact of the superintendent's conduct on the school community, thus not merely personal grievances (paras 5-6). The court also addressed the retroactivity of Lerma v. State, concluding that even if it did not apply retroactively, the evidence was sufficient under the precedent set by Wills v. Board of Regents of University of New Mexico (paras 4-5). The court declined to reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the jury, emphasizing the deference given to the fact-finder's determinations (para 6). The defendant's memorandum did not present new facts or authorities to persuade the court to alter its proposed summary disposition (para 7).