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

• Before Hector Balderas began his term as Attorney General on January 1, 2015, his transition team terminated the appellants, who had been employees within the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) for several years. The appellants appealed to the State Personnel Board, which concluded it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because OAG employees are not entitled to the protections of the Personnel Act, which includes the right to dismissal only for just cause and the right to appeal a dismissal (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, Jennifer L. Attrep, District Judge: [Not applicable or not found]
• Certiorari Denied, August 6, 2019, No. S-1-SC-37730. Released for Publication September 3, 2019: [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that under Section 10-9-4 of the Personnel Act, as amended in 1963, all employees of the OAG, with a few exceptions not relevant to them, were classified employees who could not be demoted or discharged without the procedural protections of the Act (para 2).
• Appellee (New Mexico Attorney General Office): Contended that all employees of the OAG are exempt because they serve at the pleasure of the attorney general under NMSA 1978, Section 8-5-5 (1988), and therefore may be terminated with or without cause (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether appellants were “classified” employees covered by the Personnel Act or “exempt” employees not entitled to the procedural protections of the Personnel Act (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Board's decision and remanded for a hearing consistent with the opinion that appellants are classified employees unless the Board finds that their positions satisfy an enumerated exception in Section 10-9-4(A)-(O) (para 3).

Reasons

• CHÁVEZ, Judge Pro Tempore, with MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE and LINDA M. VANZI, Judges concurring: The court concluded that the Personnel Act controls over Section 8-5-5 because the history of the Personnel Act demonstrates that the Legislature intended it to be a comprehensive revision of the law regarding state employment. The court determined that the Personnel Act is a comprehensive statute that addresses state public employment, which employees are or are not covered by the Personnel Act, and the procedural protections available to those state employees covered by the Personnel Act. The court found that the Legislature intended the Personnel Act to supersede Section 8-5-5 based on the enactment and amendment history of these statutes. The court also noted that appellants have the burden of proving they were employees as defined by the Personnel Act and held positions covered by the Act. The court instructed that on remand, the Board must determine whether one or more of the appellants fall within one of the relevant enumerated exceptions in Section 10-9-4, in which case they do not have the protections of the Personnel Act (paras 3-27).