LegalFix

Section 52-1-28.2 - Retaliation against employee seeking benefits; civil penalty.

NM Stat § 52-1-28.2 (2019) (N/A)
Copy with citation
Copy as parenthetical citation

A. An employer shall not discharge, threaten to discharge or otherwise retaliate in the terms or conditions of employment against a worker who seeks workers' compensation benefits for the sole reason that that employee seeks workers' compensation benefits.

B. Any person who discharges a worker in violation of Subsection A of this section shall rehire that worker pursuant to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act and the New Mexico Occupational Disease Disablement Law, provided the worker agrees to be rehired.

C. The director or a workers' compensation judge shall impose a civil penalty of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each violation of the provisions of Subsection A or B of this section.

D. The civil penalty shall be deposited in the workers' compensation administration fund.

History: Laws 1990 (2nd S.S.), ch. 2, § 32.

Effective dates. — Laws 1990 (2nd S.S.), ch. 2, § 153 Laws 1990 (2nd S.S.), ch. 2, § 32 effective January 1, 1991.

Cross references. — For the New Mexico Occupational Disease Disablement Law, see 52-3-1 NMSA 1978 and compiler's notes thereto.

Rehiring is mandatory. — Where the worker was fired from a tribal casino in retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim, Subsection B of Section 52-1-28.2 NMSA 1978 mandated that the district court order the employer to rehire the worker. Martinez v. Pojoaque Gaming, Inc., 2011-NMCA-103, 150 N.M. 629, 264 P.3d 725, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-009, 269 P.3d 903.

Where the worker was fired from a tribal casino in retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim; an independent tribal gaming commission, which was responsible for issuing gaming licenses that certain employees were required to possess pursuant to the gaming compact with the state, had revoked the worker's gaming license; the employer refused to rehire worker, because there were no jobs at the casino that did not require a gaming license and worker did not have a gaming license; and because the district court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to require the tribal gaming commission to issue a gaming license to worker, and the district court did not order the tribal commission to rehire worker, Subsection B of Section 52-1-28.2 NMSA 1978 does not recognize that an employer may have legitimate business reasons for not rehiring an employee or allow consideration of any other remedies as a substitution for rehiring and the district court was required under Subsection B of Section 52-1-28.2 NMSA 1978 to order the tribal casino to rehire worker. Martinez v. Pojoaque Gaming, Inc., 2011-NMCA-103, 150 N.M. 629, 264 P.3d 725, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-009, 269 P.3d 903.

Pre-judgment interest. — Where worker was awarded damages for bad faith and wrongful termination under the Workers' Compensation Act and the employer did not cause any unreasonable delay in the workers' compensation proceedings or make any unreasonable settlement offers prior to trial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying worker's request for pre-judgment interest. Martinez v. Pojoaque Gaming, Inc., 2011-NMCA-103, 150 N.M. 629, 264 P.3d 725, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-009, 269 P.3d 903.

Post-judgment interest. — Where worker was awarded damages because the employer intentionally retaliated against worker for filing a workers' compensation claim, the actions of the employer constituted bad faith, and the employer's actions amounted to fraud, malice, oppression or willful, wanton or reckless disregard of the rights of worker, the district court was required to award worker post-judgment interest at the highest rate specified in Section 56-8-4 NMSA 1978 of fifteen percent. Martinez v. Pojoaque Gaming, Inc., 2011-NMCA-103, 150 N.M. 629, 264 P.3d 725, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-009, 269 P.3d 903.

Independent retaliatory discharge action allowed. — An employee who alleges that he or she was wrongfully discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation action has a cause of action for damages independent from that set out in this section. Michaels v. Anglo Am. Auto Auctions, Inc., 1994-NMSC-015, 117 N.M. 91, 869 P.2d 279.

Law reviews. — For survey of 1990-91 workers' compensation law, see 22 N.M.L. Rev. 845 (1992).

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 52-1-28.2 - Retaliation against employee seeking benefits; civil penalty.