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 Defendant filed a charge of discrimination against the City of Albuquerque, alleging sexual discrimination. Subsequently, the Defendant and a union acting on her behalf entered into an agreement with the City to resolve a grievance related to adverse actions taken by the City, which were based on the same circumstances as the discrimination charge. The agreement included a transfer to another position without loss of wages, compensation for twenty-three days of pay, and the purging of certain files from the Defendant's personnel file (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Human Rights Commission: Found the City of Albuquerque engaged in sexual discrimination against the Defendant and awarded damages (para 1).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Entered summary judgment in favor of the City, overturning the Commission's order (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• City of Albuquerque: Argued that the agreement reached with the Defendant, which included compensation and a transfer without loss of wages, negated the claim of adverse employment action (paras 4, 6).
• Defendant: Contended that the agreement did not address or resolve the discrimination claim and that actions taken under the agreement, including the transfer, constituted adverse employment action. The Defendant also argued that the transfer resulted in a loss of opportunity for pay raises or promotions (paras 8-9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the agreement between the Defendant and the City negated the claim of adverse employment action required for a gender discrimination claim (para 4).
• Whether the Defendant demonstrated any adverse employment action as a result of the agreement with the City (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the City (para 12).

Reasons

• Majority Opinion (Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge; Timothy L. Garcia, Judge concurring): The court found no evidence of adverse employment action as the Defendant was compensated for suspensions, had her personnel file purged, and agreed to a transfer without loss of pay or benefits. The court viewed the Defendant's attempt to claim adverse employment action based on the agreement as unfounded, noting that the agreement was freely negotiated and signed with union representation. The court also noted the Defendant's failure to cite evidence supporting her claims of adverse employment action (paras 4-6, 10).
  Dissenting Opinion (Michael D. Bustamante, Judge): Dissented on the grounds that the district court improperly weighed evidence and resolved questions of fact in deciding the motion for summary judgment. The dissent argued that the district court's consideration of the Defendant's motives and the terms of the union grievance settlement as conclusive evidence against the claim of adverse employment action was inappropriate in a summary judgment context. The dissent also highlighted the disagreement between the parties on the meaning and implications of "red circling" following the transfer, indicating a material question of fact that should preclude summary judgment (paras 14-19).