AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, sought to recover wages for work done in 2009, alleging they were paid based on the incorrect 2008 prevailing wage determined by the Department of Workforce Solutions under the Public Works Minimum Wage Act. The work involved a renovation project for the University of New Mexico (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: The court determined it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the private action under the Public Works Minimum Wage Act, dismissing the action without prejudice and advising plaintiffs to pursue administrative remedies (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that the Legislature intended to create a private right of action under the Act, referencing a different district court judge's ruling in support of their position and asserting that it was generally accepted there is a private right of action (para 2).
• Defendant: Contended that the Act does not expressly allow a private right of action and that the only remedies should come through the administrative process, modeled after the federal Davis-Bacon Act, which does not provide a private right of action (paras 9, 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Public Works Minimum Wage Act confers a private right of action for plaintiffs to recover wages (para 1).
• Whether plaintiffs are required to exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing a private right of action (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ complaint and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion that the Legislature intended to create a private right of action under the Act (para 24).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Jonathan B. Sutin, with Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge Michael E. Vigil concurring, held that the Legislature intended to create a private right of action under the Public Works Minimum Wage Act. This conclusion was based on the analysis of the Act's language, particularly Sections 13-4-14(C) and (D), which were found to evidence legislative intent for such a right, separate from the administrative scheme outlined in other sections of the Act. The Court distinguished the Act from the federal Davis-Bacon Act, noting that the majority of federal cases have held against a private right of action under Davis-Bacon. The Court also considered and rejected Defendant's arguments against implying a private right of action, including legislative history and comparisons to Davis-Bacon. The Court applied the Cort factors to determine legislative intent, finding all factors weighed in favor of an implied private right of action. The decision emphasized the remedial purpose of the Act and the importance of interpreting it broadly to effectuate legislative intent (paras 4-23).