LegalFix

Section 50-9-25 - Discrimination.

NM Stat § 50-9-25 (2019) (N/A)
Copy with citation
Copy as parenthetical citation

A. No person or employer shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under or related to the Occupational Health and Safety Act or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

B. Any employee who believes that he has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of this section may, within thirty days after such alleged violation occurs, file a complaint with the secretary, in writing and acknowledged by the employee, alleging such discrimination. Upon receipt of the complaint, the secretary shall cause such investigation to be made as he deems appropriate. Within sixty days of the receipt of a complaint filed under this section, the secretary shall notify the complainant of his determination. If, upon such investigation, the secretary determines that the provisions of this section have been violated, he shall file a petition in the district court for the political subdivision in which the alleged violation occurred to restrain the violation of Subsection A of this section and for other appropriate relief including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to his former position with back pay.

History: 1953 Comp., § 59-14-24, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 290, § 15; 1993, ch. 322, § 21.

The 1993 amendment, effective April 8, 1993, substituted "secretary" for "director" in four places in Subsection B and made minor stylistic changes in Subsections A and B.

Public policy. — This section, prohibiting discrimination against employees for filing safety complaints, constitutes a statement of public policy, the violation of which may be used to establish a claim for retaliatory discharge. Sandoval v. N.M. Tech. Grp., 174 F.Supp.2d 1224 (D.N.M. 2001).

Common-law remedy for wrongful discharge. — This section does not provide the exclusive remedy for an employee alleging wrongful discharge in retaliation for reporting safety violations. An employee also has a common-law remedy for wrongful discharge. Gutierrez v. Sundancer Indian Jewelry, Inc., 1993-NMCA-156, 117 N.M. 41, 868 P.2d 1266, cert. denied, 117 N.M. 121, 869 P.2d 820 (1994).

Retaliatory discharge action. — An instruction to the jury in an action for retaliatory discharge properly quoted this section as a statement of public policy whose violation may be used to establish a retaliatory discharge. Weidler v. Big J Enters., Inc., 1998-NMCA-021, 124 N.M. 591, 953 P.2d 1089.

Law reviews. — For article, "Defending the Abusively Discharged Employee: In Search of a Judicial Solution," see 12 N.M.L. Rev. 711 (1982).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Liability for discharge of at-will employee for in-plant complaints or efforts relating to working conditions affecting health or safety, 35 A.L.R.4th 1031.

Liability for retaliation against at-will employee for public complaints or efforts relating to health or safety, 75 A.L.R.4th 13.

Pre-emption by Workers' Compensation Statute of employee's remedy under state "Whistleblower" Statute, 20 A.L.R.5th 677.

After-acquired evidence of employee's misconduct as barring or limiting recovery in action for wrongful discharge, 34 A.L.R.5th 699.

Excessiveness or adequacy of damages for wrongful termination of at-will employee under state law, 86 A.L.R.5th 397.

Who are "public employers" or "public employees" within the meaning of state whistleblower protection acts, 90 A.L.R.5th 687.

Common law retaliatory discharge of employee for refusing to perform or participate in unlawful or wrongful acts, 104 A.L.R.5th 1.

Common law retaliatory discharge of employee for disclosing unlawful acts or other misconduct of employer or fellow employees, 105 A.L.R.5th 351.

Federal pre-emption of whistleblower's state-law action for wrongful retaliation, 99 A.L.R. Fed. 775.

What constitutes appropriate relief for retaliatory discharge under § 11(c) of Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) (29 USCS § 660(c)), 134 A.L.R. Fed. 629.

LegalFix

Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.

LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.

The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.

You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.

The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.

Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

We have updated our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclosures. By continuing to browse this site, you agree to our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclosures.
Section 50-9-25 - Discrimination.