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 state employee with bipolar disorder, employed for nine years, exhibited increasingly erratic and disruptive behavior in the workplace despite accommodations provided by his employer. His conduct included insubordination, abusive behavior, and threats of violence toward coworkers and supervisors. The employer terminated his employment, citing misconduct, insubordination, and threats of physical violence (paras 4-16).
Procedural History
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): Found just cause for termination based on misconduct, insubordination, and threats of violence and recommended dismissal of the employee's appeal (para 2).
- New Mexico State Personnel Board: Adopted the ALJ's findings and upheld the termination (para 2).
- District Court of Santa Fe County: Affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence for just cause and determining that progressive discipline was not required (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Employee): Argued that his termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Board failed to consider his mental disability. He also claimed he was denied due process due to the lack of progressive discipline and challenged the supplementation of the record on appeal (paras 3, 18, 36-37, 47).
- Respondent (New Mexico State Engineer Office): Asserted that the termination complied with the ADA, the employee was not a qualified individual with a disability, and no reasonable accommodation could enable him to perform his job. They also argued that the Board lacked authority to decide ADA claims and that progressive discipline was not required due to the severity of the employee's conduct (paras 19-20, 42).
Legal Issues
- Did the New Mexico State Personnel Board have the authority to adjudicate ADA claims in a personnel appeal? (paras 18-27)
- Was the employee's termination supported by just cause? (paras 30-36)
- Was the employer required to apply progressive discipline before terminating the employee? (paras 37-45)
- Did the district court err in allowing supplementation of the record on appeal? (paras 47-49)
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the decisions of the New Mexico State Personnel Board and the district court (para 50).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Apodaca and Armijo JJ. concurring):
Authority to Adjudicate ADA Claims: The Board lacked authority to decide ADA claims as such authority is vested in specialized agencies like the EEOC and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission (NMHRC). The Board could consider disability-related evidence only to assess whether the employer's reasons for termination were pretextual (paras 18-29).
Just Cause for Termination: Substantial evidence supported the finding of just cause for termination based on the employee's misconduct, insubordination, and threats of violence. The employer made extensive efforts to accommodate the employee's disability, but his behavior continued to deteriorate (paras 30-36).
Progressive Discipline: Progressive discipline was not required because the employee's conduct, including threats of violence, constituted just cause for immediate dismissal under the Board Rules. While the employer's prior accommodations fell short of formal progressive discipline, they were sufficient under the circumstances (paras 37-45).
Supplementation of the Record: The district court erred in allowing supplementation of the record with material not presented to the Board. However, the error was deemed harmless as the decision was supported by the evidence already in the record (paras 47-49).