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, while serving as Administrator of the Curry County Detention Center, was directed by County Manager Lance Pyle to discipline an employee, Amanda Sinfuego, for allegedly distributing union materials. The Plaintiff refused to discipline Sinfuego, believing she did not partake in the activities as claimed. Subsequently, the Plaintiff's contract was not renewed by the Defendant, leading the Plaintiff to file a complaint under the New Mexico Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), alleging retaliation for refusing to participate in what he considered an unlawful or improper act (paras 2, 4).

Procedural History

• Federal Court: Plaintiff's claims, including state law WPA claims, were dismissed on motions to dismiss or summary judgment, with the WPA claims dismissed without prejudice (para 3).
• District Court of Curry County: After an unsuccessful federal appeal, Plaintiff proceeded to state court, filing an amended complaint. The court issued a directed verdict in favor of Defendant for two of Plaintiff’s three remaining WPA claims, leaving one claim for jury consideration (para 3-4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the directive to discipline Sinfuego constituted an unlawful or improper act and that his refusal to comply led to retaliation by not renewing his contract, in violation of the WPA (para 4).
• Defendant: Contended that the Plaintiff's refusal to discipline Sinfuego did not constitute objection to an unlawful or improper act as defined by the WPA, challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury's finding (para 18).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's refusal to discipline an employee, as directed by the County Manager, constituted an objection to an activity, policy, or practice that was an "unlawful or improper act" under the New Mexico Whistleblower Protection Act (para 4).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the directive to discipline the employee was an "unlawful or improper act" (para 18).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s final judgment and vacated the jury’s verdict, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the conduct the Plaintiff objected to or refused to participate in was an "unlawful or improper act" as defined by the jury instructions (para 23).
• The Plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the interest award on the jury’s award of lost wages was deemed moot due to the reversal of the district court's judgment (para 24).

Reasons

• Per HANISEE, Chief Judge, with concurrence from Judges KRISTINA BOGARDUS and ZACHARY A. IVES, the Court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that the directive to discipline Sinfuego violated a federal law, federal regulation, state law, or state administrative rule, as required under the WPA. The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff's personal policy against disciplining employees for actions they did not commit does not equate to an "unlawful or improper act" under the WPA. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Plaintiff's appellate arguments, based on federal and state laws and a county ordinance, were not presented to the jury and thus could not support the jury's findings. The Court's decision was guided by the principle that a directed verdict is only appropriate when there are no true issues of fact for a jury and that the sufficiency of evidence is a question of law (paras 13, 18-23).