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, a white City employee, was demoted with a pay reduction after a DWI conviction, despite having his City Operator’s Permit (COP) revoked and later reinstated. He alleged race discrimination and retaliation, claiming disparate treatment compared to a Hispanic supervisor who faced similar charges but was reinstated to his managerial position with his COP restored after a year. The Plaintiff's requests for reinstatement to his previous position were denied based on the City's policy, which led him to file a charge of discrimination (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the City discriminated against him based on race and retaliated against him for filing a discrimination complaint, highlighting the disparate treatment compared to a Hispanic supervisor who was reinstated after a similar DWI conviction (para 6).
• Defendant (City of Albuquerque): Raised twelve issues on appeal, consolidated into five areas for discussion, challenging the district court's decisions on various grounds including the scope of trial evidence, jury instructions, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's award of damages (paras 7-32).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by allowing evidence of events outside the specific dates of alleged discrimination for which the Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies (para 8).
• Whether the district court erred in its jury instructions regarding the intent required to establish discrimination and retaliation, and the instructions on damages (paras 10, 15, 22, 26).
• Whether the district court erred in excluding evidence about open positions at the City from 2015 to 2018 (para 11).
• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's award of damages for emotional distress and lost wages (paras 25, 31, 32).

Disposition

• The judgment on a jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiff on his claims for race discrimination and retaliation under the New Mexico Human Rights Act was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court found that the City failed to preserve certain arguments for appeal and invited any error complained of by questioning witnesses about events outside the contested dates. The Court also held that the City did not demonstrate error in the district court's decisions regarding jury instructions and the exclusion of evidence. The jury was properly instructed on the intent required for discrimination and retaliation, and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's award of damages for emotional distress and lost wages. The Court applied a presumption of correctness to the district court's rulings and decisions, noting that the appellant (City) did not clearly show error (paras 8-32).