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

• The Plaintiff, an assistant director of environmental services, was employed by the Defendants starting in 2003. The employment was governed by an employee handbook, which included a two-step grievance process. The Plaintiff was suspended for thirty days in March 2005 and terminated in September 2005. Although the Plaintiff's attorney notified the Defendants of an intent to submit a grievance regarding the suspension, the grievance was never filed. The Plaintiff did not submit a grievance for the termination either and filed a lawsuit in April 2006, alleging breach of express and implied contracts of employment based on the Defendants' failure to follow the employee handbook's policies and procedures (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the grievance procedures outlined in the employee handbook were not mandatory, thus not requiring exhaustion before filing a lawsuit (para 5).
• Defendants: Contended that the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim was barred due to failure to exhaust the internal grievance procedures specified in the employee handbook (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether an employee must exhaust grievance procedures contained in an employee handbook before filing a lawsuit for breach of contract based on an alleged failure of the employer to follow the employee handbook (para 7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the Plaintiff must substantially comply with the mandatory internal grievance procedures before filing suit for breach of contract (para 16).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge James J. Wechsler with Judges Roderick T. Kennedy and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, reasoned that New Mexico courts recognize the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The Court cited previous rulings indicating that employees must exhaust grievance procedures in an employee handbook before pursuing claims against the employer for breach of contract or civil rights violations based on the policies governing employment. The Court found that the district court erred in its decision by not requiring the Plaintiff to exhaust the grievance procedures before filing a lawsuit. The Court also addressed the Plaintiff's argument regarding the permissive language ("may") in the grievance procedure, interpreting it as providing two options: either to file a grievance and exhaust the remedies under the employee handbook before filing an action in district court or to accept the disciplinary decision without filing a grievance. The Court concluded that the grievance procedure was mandatory for an employee wishing to challenge a disciplinary action (paras 8-15).