793 F.Supp.3d 1338
D.N.M.2025Background
- Plaintiff Deborah West was a delivery driver for BAM! Pizza, paid hourly at New Mexico’s minimum wage from December 2018 to January 2020.
- BAM! Pizza reimbursed drivers per delivery, but West alleges these payments were insufficient to cover required work expenses (gas, insurance, maintenance), effectively reducing her net pay below minimum wage.
- West seeks, on behalf of herself and similarly situated workers, to recover the difference between her pay (after subtracting unreimbursed expenses) and the state minimum wage under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA) and FLSA.
- BAM! Pizza moved for summary judgment, arguing New Mexico law does not support West’s theory.
- This motion addressed whether the NMMWA provides a cause of action for insufficient reimbursement that results in sub-minimum wages.
- The court denied summary judgment, holding the claim is cognizable under the NMMWA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NMMWA allow recovery for sub-minimum net pay due to insufficient expense reimbursement? | NMMWA requires minimum wage free from kickbacks; insufficient reimbursement that drops pay below minimum wage is actionable. | NMMWA is silent on reimbursement; no right to recover unless paystub shows deductions or statute expressly requires it. | Yes. NMMWA authorizes claims for sub-minimum wage caused by unreimbursed business expenses. |
| Is the FLSA framework relevant to interpreting the NMMWA in this context? | FLSA and NMMWA have similar purposes; federal law can guide where NM law is undeveloped. | FLSA and NMMWA are distinct; FLSA precedents should not be imported to state claims. | Yes. NM courts often harmonize NMMWA with FLSA; FLSA precedent is persuasive. |
| Are vehicle-related expenses for delivery drivers “kickbacks” under the NMMWA? | Such expenses primarily benefit employer; if unreimbursed below minimum wage, they are kickbacks. | Only direct deductions count; indirect reimbursements or third-party payments do not qualify. | Yes. Required vehicle costs for the employer’s benefit are kickbacks when forcing pay below minimum wage. |
| Should the question be certified to the NM Supreme Court due to uncertainty? | No; existing authority and agency guidance suffice – clear path forward without state certification. | Yes; lack of New Mexico precedent and possible new policy implications warrant certification. | No. Sufficient guidance exists for federal court to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arriaga v. Fla. Pac. Farms, LLC, 305 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002) (No distinction between direct wage deductions and requiring employees to bear work expenses for minimum wage compliance)
- Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2013) (Nevada law interpreted to follow FLSA on minimum wage claims from unreimbursed expenses)
- State v. Lujan, 560 P.2d 167 (N.M. 1977) (Statutory language of “shall” is mandatory, not discretionary under NM law)
- Valentine v. Bank of Albuquerque, 697 P.2d 489 (N.M. 1985) (New Mexico Supreme Court looks to FLSA for guidance on wage law)
- Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 970 P.2d 582 (N.M. 1998) (NMMWA conveys nonnegotiable, minimum standards for all workers)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016) (FLSA’s purpose to protect workers from substandard wages)