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, Debra Cox, was employed by the City of Albuquerque from 1992 to 2009. In 2000, she suffered a back injury while working, leading to a lifting restriction. In May 2008, upon her supervisor's discovery of this restriction, she was sent home and eventually terminated in May 2009. Cox filed several claims related to her injury and employment, leading to a settlement offer from the City, which she rejected. Her employment and subsequent legal disputes centered around the City's handling of her injury, accommodation requests, and termination.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the City discriminated against her based on her sex and disability, failed to make reasonable accommodations for her back injury, and retaliated against her. She challenged the district court's evidentiary rulings as reversible error.
• Defendant: Contended that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages and that the evidentiary rulings were correct. The City also argued that the Plaintiff did not preserve certain arguments for appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court committed reversible error by excluding evidence of the Workers' Compensation judge's (WCJ) rejection of the City's offer of re-employment.
• Whether the district court erred in allowing the City to introduce evidence of the Plaintiff's approval for a Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) disability pension while excluding evidence of the settlement agreement's part in her PERA application.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the City on all claims.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Timothy L. Garcia authoring the opinion, held that the Plaintiff did not preserve her arguments regarding the admissibility of the offer of re-employment under Rule 11-408 NMRA or the relevance of the WCJ's rejection of the offer. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's exclusion of evidence related to the WCJ's rejection of the City's offer of re-employment, as the Plaintiff did not demonstrate that the WCJ's order preceded her rejection of the offer or that it was relevant to the timing of the offer (paras 11-18). Regarding the PERA disability pension, the court determined that the Plaintiff did not preserve her arguments for appeal and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of the settlement agreement related to the PERA application. The court reasoned that the Plaintiff's belief that she could not accept the pension benefit due to the settlement agreement's rejection by the WCJ was erroneous and unfounded, and thus, excluding evidence of the settlement agreement was not an abuse of discretion (paras 19-24).