Lucero v. Board of Regents
2012 NMCA 055
N.M. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendants University of New Mexico Board of Regents and UNMHSC appeal after a bench trial resulted in a verdict for Plaintiff Lucero.
- Defendants contend the district court erred by denying summary judgment on breach of contract claims because Lucero did not exhaust the handbook’s internal grievance procedures.
- The court holds that an employee must substantially comply with mandatory grievance procedures in the handbook before suing for breach of contract based on the handbook.
- Lucero began employment in 2003 as an assistant director; the handbook governs employment and provides a two-step grievance process.
- In March 2005, Lucero was suspended for 30 days; he did not timely file a grievance and later acknowledged missing the deadline.
- In September 2005, Lucero was terminated; he did not file a grievance and filed suit in 2006, with amended claims in 2007 alleging breach of contract and related theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion of handbook grievances is required for breach claims. | Lucero argues grievance procedures are not mandatory. | Defendants contend exhaustion is required. | Exhaustion required; substantial compliance needed. |
| Effect of permissive language (may) in the handbook. | Lucero argues ‘may’ makes grievance optional. | Defendants argue procedures are mandatory for challenging disciplinary action. | ‘May’ is permissive only for options; filing suit requires exhaustion if challenging discipline. |
| Whether substantial compliance with internal grievance procedures suffices to proceed in court. | Lucero did not exhaust; claims barred. | Exhaustion should bar claims lacking compliance. | Substantial compliance is required; failure to exhaust bars the breach claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. Mem’l Gen. Hosp., 726 P.2d 852 (N.M. 1986) (exhaustion required when handbook-created rights are involved)
- McDowell v. Napolitano, 895 P.2d 218 (N.M. 1995) (substantial compliance can allow litigation despite non-exhaustion)
- McGuire v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2000) (exhaustion required in handbook-based breach claims)
- Orr v. Westminster Vill. N, Inc., 689 N.E.2d 712 (Ind. 1997) (summary judgment on breach claims may be proper without exhaustion)
- O’Brien v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 664 N.E.2d 843 (Mass. 1996) (exhaustion required before breach claims based on handbook policies)
- Neiman v. Yale Univ., 851 A.2d 1165 (Conn. 2004) (internal grievance procedures must be exhausted before suit)