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, employed as the chief radiation therapist at the UNM Cancer Center, reported witnessing unsafe and unethical practices within her department to a compliance hotline and the executive director of human resources. Subsequently, the Defendant discharged the Plaintiff, citing a violation of internal policy and stating her services were no longer needed. The Plaintiff then filed a complaint seeking monetary damages under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) and for common law wrongful discharge, alleging her termination was retaliation for her reports (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the wrongful discharge claim but denied the motion as to Plaintiff’s WPA claim. The court did not provide reasoning in its order but indicated in court that the WPA could potentially apply to research park corporations incorporated under the URPEDA (para 4).
• UNM Medical Group v. Butkus, S-1-SC-37662, (N.M. June 6, 2019): Defendant unsuccessfully sought a writ of superintending control to the Supreme Court after the district court denied the motion to dismiss the WPA claim (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant was a public employer subject to the WPA and that the district court’s earlier denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s WPA claim was law of the case (para 1).
• Defendant: Responded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment because the plain language of the URPEDA precludes WPA claims, and there were no material issues of fact in dispute (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant was a public employer subject to the WPA (para 7).
• Whether the law of the case doctrine precluded the district court from granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant (para 20).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, concluding that the Defendant, as a private, nonprofit corporation under the URPEDA, was not subject to the WPA (paras 1, 22).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Bogardus, with Chief Judge Attrep and Judge Hanisee concurring, held that:
  The district court did not err in concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Defendant was a public employer subject to the WPA. The Court found that the URPEDA's specific and plain language precludes WPA claims against research park corporations like the Defendant, which are deemed private, nonprofit corporations and not public entities (paras 7-18).
  The law of the case doctrine did not preclude the district court from granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. The Court reasoned that the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to dismiss the WPA claim was an interlocutory order, not a final judgment, and thus could be revised at any time prior to final judgment. The Court found no error in the district court's decision to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on the URPEDA precluding WPA claims against the Defendant (paras 20-21).