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, an assistant basketball coach at New Mexico State University (NMSU), was employed under an emergency hire status starting in June 1996. After a year, he was rehired in the same position under regular employment procedures. The dispute centers on whether his initial emergency hire period constituted his probationary period, which would grant him non-probationary status and due process protections at the time of his termination in October 1997. The Athletic Director summarily terminated the Plaintiff without notice or a hearing, leading to claims of breach of implied contract and deprivation of due process (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, Dona Ana County: Denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity regarding the due process claim (headnotes, para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that his emergency hire period constituted his probationary period, making him a non-probationary employee at the time of termination. He claimed that the termination violated his due process rights under NMSU's Personnel and Benefits Policy Manual (paras 3-4, 6).
- Defendant: Contended that the Plaintiff's probationary period began after his rehire in June 1997, meaning he was still a probationary employee at the time of termination and not entitled to due process protections. The Defendant also argued for qualified immunity, asserting that the Plaintiff's property interest in continued employment was not clearly established (paras 4-5, 9-11).
Legal Issues
- Was the Plaintiff's property interest in continued employment under NMSU's Personnel and Benefits Policy Manual clearly established at the time of his termination?
- Was the Defendant entitled to qualified immunity regarding the Plaintiff's due process claim?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's denial of summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity and remanded the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on the due process claim and further proceedings on the Plaintiff's remaining claims (para 28).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Pickard CJ and Hartz J. concurring):
- The Court applied a two-part test for qualified immunity: (1) whether there was evidentiary support for a possible violation of law, and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation (para 9).
- The Court found that the Plaintiff's alleged property interest in continued employment was not clearly established under NMSU's Personnel and Benefits Policy Manual. The Manual contained ambiguities regarding whether the emergency hire period overlapped with the probationary period, and there was no clear legal precedent resolving this issue (paras 20-22).
- The affidavits submitted by the Plaintiff, which expressed opinions on the unreasonableness of the Defendant's interpretation of the Manual, did not establish a clearly defined legal right to continued employment. The affidavits reflected differences in legal interpretation rather than factual disputes (paras 23-24).
- The Court emphasized that qualified immunity protects officials unless they violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Here, the Defendant could not have reasonably known that terminating the Plaintiff without due process violated a clearly established right (paras 8, 26).
- The Court clarified that its decision on qualified immunity did not preclude the Plaintiff's state-law claim for breach of implied contract, which remains to be decided at trial (para 27).