This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
An employee, serving as Chief Investigator for the New Mexico Real Estate Commission (NMREC), was dismissed for alleged misconduct, including unprofessional behavior, foul language, and sexually charged misconduct. The employee argued that the dismissal violated the State Personnel Board (SPB) Rules as he was not afforded progressive discipline prior to termination. The case also involved a dispute over whether the employee was employed by the NMREC or the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department (the Department) (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- State Personnel Board (SPB): Determined that the employee was employed by the Department, not NMREC, and found that the employee was not afforded progressive discipline prior to termination. Ordered reinstatement and transfer to another agency (paras 5-6).
- District Court of Santa Fe County: Affirmed the SPB's decision and order (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant/Cross-Appellee (Department): Argued that the employee was employed by the Department, not NMREC, and that the dismissal was justified even without progressive discipline. Asserted that the employee's behavior constituted just cause for termination (paras 9, 17).
- Appellee/Cross-Appellant (Employee): Contended that he was employed by NMREC, not the Department, and that the Department lacked authority to terminate him. Further argued that his dismissal violated SPB Rules due to the absence of progressive discipline (paras 9, 14).
Legal Issues
- Was the employee employed by the Department or NMREC?
- Did the Department violate SPB Rules by failing to afford the employee progressive discipline prior to termination?
- Was there just cause for the employee's dismissal?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, which upheld the SPB's findings that the employee was employed by the Department, was not afforded progressive discipline, and was improperly dismissed (paras 22-23).
Reasons
Per A. Joseph Alarid J. (Donnelly and Bosson JJ. concurring):
Employment Relationship: The Court held that the employee was employed by the Department because NMREC is a division of the Department under the authority of an executive order consolidating professional boards. The Department had the authority to hire and fire employees of NMREC (paras 9-13).
Progressive Discipline: The Court found that the SPB Rules and the Department's employee handbook required progressive discipline to address inadequate performance unless there was just cause for immediate dismissal. The employee's personnel file lacked evidence of progressive discipline, and the Department failed to follow its own procedures for addressing performance issues (paras 14-15, 20-21).
Just Cause: The Court agreed with the SPB's finding that the employee's misconduct, while disrespectful and demeaning, did not rise to the level of just cause for dismissal without prior progressive discipline. The Department's failure to document or address the employee's behavior through progressive discipline rendered the termination improper (paras 19-21).
Conclusion: The Court affirmed the SPB's decision to reinstate the employee and transfer him to another agency, as the dismissal violated SPB Rules and lacked just cause (paras 22-23).