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 Human Rights Commission found that the Respondent, Alliance Communication, failed to pay an employee for three periods in 2002 and terminated the employee based on disability and race. The Commission awarded the employee damages, costs, and interest totaling $15,168.22.
Procedural History
- Human Rights Commission: Found in favor of the employee, determining that the Respondent failed to pay wages and terminated the employee based on disability and race, awarding damages.
- District Court, Bernalillo County: Enforced the Commission’s order and judgment. Denied the Respondent’s motion to reconsider.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Alliance Communication): Argued that it did not receive proper notice of the Commission’s proceedings and that the employee was not covered under the Human Rights Act as they were not an employee of the Respondent.
- Appellee (Human Rights Commission): Asserted that the Respondent was properly notified through certified mail and other means, and that substantial evidence supported the finding that the employee was indeed employed by the Respondent.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Respondent received proper notice of the Commission’s proceedings.
- Whether the employee was covered under the Human Rights Act as an employee of the Respondent.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying the Respondent’s motion to reconsider.
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Fry CJ. and Castillo J. concurring):
-
Notice: The Court found substantial evidence that the Respondent received proper notice as required by the Human Rights Act. Certified mail and other communications were sent to the Respondent’s registered agent, and the agent had actual notice of the proceedings. The district court was entitled to reject the Respondent’s claim of lack of notice based on conflicting evidence.
-
Due Process: The Court rejected the Respondent’s claim that there was no hearing on the notice issue, noting that the record showed multiple opportunities for the Respondent to present its arguments, including hearings and filings in the district court.
-
Employment Relationship: The Court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the employee was employed by the Respondent. The Commission and district court resolved factual disputes against the Respondent, and the appellate court deferred to those findings.
-
Summary Judgment Standards: The Court dismissed the Respondent’s reliance on summary judgment standards, emphasizing that the case involved factual determinations already resolved by the Commission and district court.