Weatherwax v. City of Alamogordo, A-1-CA-36164

Plaintiff Larry Weatherwax sued the City of Alamogordo alleging reverse discrimination under the New Mexico Human Rights Act; the district court granted summary judgment for the City.
This Court issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to reverse the district court; the City filed a memorandum in opposition.
Central legal question was whether this Court’s decision in Garcia v. Hatch Valley Public Schools (which reaffirmed the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and rejected a heightened proof standard for reverse-discrimination claims) should be applied retroactively to Weatherwax’s case.
The City argued Garcia should not apply retroactively and alternatively urged affirmance under the right-for-any-reason doctrine.
The Court analyzed Chevron Oil factors for retroactivity, rejected the City’s contentions, and held Garcia’s presumptive retroactivity was not overcome.
The Court declined to apply the right-for-any-reason doctrine because the district court never ruled on the City’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s affidavit, an evidentiary issue that could affect summary judgment and should be resolved below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garcia should be applied retroactively	Garcia should govern Weatherwax’s claim and apply retroactively	Garcia should not apply retroactively because it allegedly announced a new rule and its effect is unclear	Garcia presumptively applies retroactively; City failed to overcome presumption under Chevron Oil factors
Whether Garcia’s reasoning extends to reverse gender-discrimination claims	Garcia’s rejection of a heightened standard applies equally to reverse gender claims	Garcia addressed reverse racial discrimination and its extension to gender claims is unclear	Garcia’s definition and reasoning encompass reverse gender claims; nothing limits it to race
Whether the Court should affirm under the right-for-any-reason doctrine	Weatherwax opposes addressing alternative grounds not decided below	City asks this Court to affirm on any correct ground despite the lower court’s reasoning	Court declined to apply right-for-any-reason because district court did not rule on motion to strike Plaintiff’s affidavit; evidentiary ruling may affect summary judgment
Whether summary judgment for City should be affirmed	Weatherwax contends summary judgment was improper under McDonnell Douglas framework	City contends summary judgment was proper (and raises affidavit was a sham)	Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings (including resolution of affidavit challenge)

Garcia v. Hatch Valley Public Schools, 369 P.3d 1 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (reaffirmed McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting and rejected heightened proof for reverse-discrimination claims)
Beavers v. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., 881 P.2d 1376 (N.M. 1994) (discussed presumption of retroactivity and Chevron Oil factors)
Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1971) (established factors for retroactivity analysis)
Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1993) (overruled Chevron Oil on other grounds; cited regarding retroactivity doctrine)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (articulated burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 970 P.2d 582 (N.M. 1998) (summary judgment standard reiterated)
Reynolds v. Swigert, 697 P.2d 504 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984) (waiver of affidavit defects absent motion to strike)
Whenry v. Whenry, 652 P.2d 1188 (N.M. 1982) (retroactivity and Chevron Oil factors discussion)