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

• A former police officer for the Sandia Pueblo Police Department filed a lawsuit against the then Police Chief and Police Captain of Sandia Pueblo, in their individual capacities, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).

Procedural History

• South v. Lujan, 2014-NMCA-109, 336 P.3d 1000: Previous appeal to this Court by the parties.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by determining that the defendants cannot be held individually liable under the NMHRA because Sandia Pueblo is not considered an employer subject to the NMHRA (para 1).
• Defendants-Appellees: Contended that the NMHRA does not apply to the plaintiff's claims because Tribal Nations are not employers under the NMHRA, and also raised arguments regarding the infringement test and timeliness of the claims (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether a Tribal Nation is considered an employer under the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).
• Whether individual persons, aside from employers, can be held liable under the NMHRA for aiding in discriminatory practices.

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claims.

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge, retired, sitting by designation, with KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, and JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge, concurring:
  The Court held that Tribal Nations are not considered employers under the NMHRA based on the statute's definitions of "employer" and "person," which do not include Tribal Nations or any government other than the state government (paras 4-6).
  It was determined that individual persons, such as the defendants, cannot be held liable under the NMHRA for aiding in discriminatory practices if their employer, in this case, Sandia Pueblo, is not considered an employer under the NMHRA (para 7).
  The Court's interpretation aligns with previous case law regarding the definition of "person" in other statutes and how governments or Tribal Nations are included or excluded based on statutory language (paras 8-10).
  The Court rejected the plaintiff's arguments to look beyond the plain language of the NMHRA, including comparisons to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the argument that the NMHRA is a remedial statute that should be interpreted liberally. The Court found the NMHRA's language clear and unambiguous in not including Tribal Nations within its definition of "person" or "employer" (paras 12-15).