This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a head cashier at a grocery store, informed her employer of her pregnancy. Following this, her work hours and duties were reduced, and her replacement's hours increased. The employer stated she could only retain her position if she returned immediately after childbirth, which led the Plaintiff to resign. She later filed a claim alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination under the New Mexico Human Rights Act.
Procedural History
- Human Rights Commission: Found in favor of the Plaintiff, determining that the Defendant engaged in discriminatory practices.
- District Court of San Miguel County: Conducted a jury trial, which resulted in a $25,000 verdict for the Plaintiff and an additional $25,000 in attorney fees.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the jury was improperly instructed on lost wages, that a rebuttal witness was improperly allowed to testify, and that the venue was improperly transferred from Colfax County to San Miguel County.
- Appellee (Plaintiff): Asserted that the jury instructions were adequate, the rebuttal witness was necessary to address new testimony, and the venue transfer was proper under the Human Rights Act.
Legal Issues
- Was the jury properly instructed on the Plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages?
- Did the trial court err in allowing a rebuttal witness to testify despite late disclosure?
- Was the venue properly transferred from Colfax County to San Miguel County?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the judgment of the district court in its entirety.
Reasons
Per Ransom J. (Baca and Montgomery JJ. concurring):
Jury Instructions on Lost Wages:
The court held that the jury was adequately instructed on the Plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages by exercising "ordinary care" to minimize losses. While the Defendant argued for a "reasonable diligence" standard, the court found the instructions sufficient and consistent with precedent. The jury was properly left to decide whether the Plaintiff's decision to pursue education constituted reasonable mitigation.
Rebuttal Witness Testimony:
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the rebuttal witness to testify. The testimony was cumulative, corroborating the Plaintiff's claims, and did not prejudice the Defendant. The court emphasized the broad discretion afforded to trial courts in admitting testimony, even when disclosure is untimely, unless significant prejudice is shown.
Venue Transfer:
The court interpreted the Human Rights Act to require that appeals for trial de novo proceed in the district court of the county where the discriminatory practice occurred or where the respondent does business, as chosen by the Human Rights Commission. Since the Commission held its hearing in San Miguel County, the venue transfer was proper.
Attorney Fees on Appeal:
The case was remanded to the district court solely to award costs and reasonable attorney fees for the appeal, as provided under the Human Rights Act.