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 former employee of the University of New Mexico Hospital (UNMH), filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, the Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico, alleging violations of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA). The Plaintiff claimed to have suffered from a pattern of sexual harassment, intimidation, and bullying by a colleague, leading to a hostile work environment. The Plaintiff also alleged constructive discharge and retaliation, including being placed on a "do-not-hire" list after resigning, in response to her complaints about the harassment.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant created a hostile work environment based on gender, constructively discharged her, and retaliated against her for complaining about the harassment, all in violation of the NMHRA.
• Defendant: Contended that the NMHRA does not apply to former employees, challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury's verdict, and disputed the award of damages and various district court rulings.

Legal Issues

• Whether the NMHRA applies to former employees.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on claims of hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence.
• Whether the jury's award of damages was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Whether the district court erred in imposing a discovery sanction on the Defendant.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the Plaintiff's application for an attorney fee multiplier.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiff on all claims and the district court's rulings on the contested issues.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals held that the NMHRA's protections extend to former employees, thus allowing the Plaintiff to pursue her claims (paras 4-6). The Court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of a hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation (paras 7-25). It also determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain hearsay evidence (paras 26-30) and in its award of damages (para 32). The imposition of a discovery sanction against the Defendant was upheld, as the Court found no abuse of discretion (paras 33-38). Lastly, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the Plaintiff's request for an attorney fee multiplier (paras 40-43).