This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A worker employed by Cities of Gold Casino, operated by Pojoaque Gaming Inc. (PGI), sustained a workplace injury and filed a workers' compensation claim. Subsequently, the worker's gaming license was revoked by the Pueblo of Pojoaque Gaming Commission (PPGC), leading to his termination. The worker alleged retaliatory discharge and bad faith by his employer for filing the claim (paras 2-3, 6, 9).
Procedural History
- Workers’ Compensation Administration, February 29, 2008: The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ) found that PGI acted in bad faith and retaliated against the worker, awarding penalties and increased compensation. However, the WCJ concluded he lacked authority to order the worker’s rehiring due to the PPGC’s sovereign immunity and refusal to reissue the worker’s gaming license (paras 16, 30).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Worker): Argued that the WCJ had authority to order his rehiring under the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) and that PGI’s actions violated anti-retaliation provisions. He also challenged the adequacy of remedies under the WCA and the constitutionality of the attorney fee cap (paras 19-20, 33-35).
- Respondents (PGI, PPGC, and others): Asserted that the PPGC’s sovereign immunity precluded any order requiring the reissuance of the worker’s gaming license, which was necessary for rehiring. They also argued that the worker failed to exhaust tribal remedies (paras 11, 32).
Legal Issues
- Did the WCJ have authority to order the worker’s employer to rehire him under the WCA?
- Does the PPGC’s sovereign immunity preclude enforcement of the WCA’s rehiring provision?
- Are the remedies under the WCA for retaliatory discharge and bad faith adequate and constitutional?
- Is the attorney fee cap under the WCA constitutional?
Disposition
- The Court reversed the WCJ’s finding that it lacked authority to order PGI to rehire the worker and held that PGI must comply with the mandatory rehiring provision of the WCA (paras 31, 37).
- The Court affirmed the WCJ’s findings on all other issues, including the adequacy of remedies and the constitutionality of the attorney fee cap (paras 33-36, 37).
Reasons
Per Vanzi J. (Fry CJ and Bustamante J. concurring):
Rehiring Authority: The Court held that the WCA’s anti-retaliation provision mandates rehiring for retaliatory discharge. PGI, having waived its sovereign immunity by participating in the WCA proceedings, must comply. The PPGC’s sovereign immunity does not preclude this obligation, as the WCJ can order PGI to provide a substantially equivalent position without requiring PPGC to reissue the gaming license (paras 27-31).
Sovereign Immunity: The Court distinguished between the sovereign immunity of PGI and PPGC. While PPGC retained its immunity, PGI waived it by voluntarily litigating the worker’s claims (paras 22-28).
Adequacy of Remedies: The Court rejected the worker’s argument for expanded remedies under the WCA, noting that the tort of retaliatory discharge, recognized in Michaels v. Anglo Am. Auto Auctions, provides additional recourse for workers (paras 33-34).
Attorney Fee Cap: The Court upheld the constitutionality of the attorney fee cap, finding no evidence that it was irrational or unrelated to the state’s objectives. The Court was bound by precedent in Wagner v. AGW Consultants, which had previously upheld the cap (paras 35-36).
The Court concluded that the WCJ erred in not enforcing the mandatory rehiring provision against PGI but affirmed the remainder of the WCJ’s findings.