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

• Petitioners, acting on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, challenged the Secretary of the Department of Workforce Solutions' determination that two construction projects were not subject to the Public Works Minimum Wage Act (PWMWA). This challenge arose after a settlement agreement, where the builders agreed to pay over $930,000 to workers, was not fulfilled. The Secretary's letter reversing the Director’s determination was sent to one of the builders and forwarded to Petitioners' attorney. Petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed as untimely, leading to the current appeal (paras 3-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the administrative tribunal's dismissal of Petitioners' appeal as untimely.
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico: Current decision affirming the dismissal of Petitioners' appeal on the ground that it was untimely filed.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellants: Argued that the Secretary’s notice of determination was insufficient to trigger the appeal deadline and that the lower court erred in upholding the dismissal (para 1).
• Respondents-Appellees: Contended that the appeal was untimely filed and that the notice provided was sufficient to trigger the appeal deadline (paras 6, 9-10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the administrative tribunal erred in dismissing Petitioners’ appeal as untimely on the basis that the notice of determination was insufficient to trigger the appeal deadline (para 1).
• Whether the delivery of the determination letter to one of the builders violated Petitioners' right to due process (para 12).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Petitioners’ appeal on the ground that it was untimely filed (para 16).

Reasons

• Per Michael D. Bustamante, J. (Cynthia A. Fry, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The court found no violation of the PWMWA in the issuance of a determination by the Secretary instead of the Director, as the Secretary wields the same powers granted to the Director and is the Director’s supervisor (para 10).
  The contents of the Secretary’s letter did not violate statutory requirements, as the PWMWA does not mandate that a notice of determination must state it is a final appealable action nor inform recipients of appeal requirements (para 11).
  The court concluded that Petitioners’ due process rights were not violated by the method of notice, as the actual knowledge of the letter’s existence and contents on the same day it was issued to the builders was deemed sufficient. The notice was sufficient to prompt Petitioners to inquire into the letter’s effect, aligning with principles applied in similar settings (paras 13-15).