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 employee of Albuquerque Public Schools (APS), sought leave in 2009 but was denied. In 2012, the Plaintiff discovered he may have been entitled to the leave he requested in 2009. The Plaintiff did not follow the internal grievance procedures specified in the negotiated agreement with APS, particularly failing to make any assertion or complaint within the specified fifteen days and not informing Human Resources that the denial was contrary to any provision of the employee agreement.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Alan M. Malott, District Judge: Granted APS' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that he substantially complied with the notice requirement despite not following the specific grievance procedures outlined in the negotiated agreement.
• Defendant-Appellee (APS): Argued for dismissal and summary judgment on the basis that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust internal grievance procedures before filing suit for breach of contract.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff was required to exhaust internal grievance procedures prior to filing suit for breach of contract based on an employer’s failure to follow internal policies.
• Whether the Plaintiff substantially complied with the notice requirement despite not following the specific grievance procedures outlined in the negotiated agreement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of APS' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment.

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Cynthia A. Fry, J., concurring): The Court found that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust internal grievance procedures as required by the negotiated agreement before filing suit for breach of contract. The Plaintiff did not make any assertion or complaint within the fifteen days specified in the negotiated agreement, nor did he inform Human Resources that the denial of leave was contrary to any provision of the employee agreement. The Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition did not present new arguments but reiterated previously made points, which the Court found unpersuasive. The Court emphasized the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies as set forth in the negotiated agreement (paras 1-5).