357 P.3d 453
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- John Wills was hired in 2002 as Chair of Anesthesiology under a two-year written employment contract; after it expired in 2004 UNM continued paying him under the same terms until 2009 and then changed/payments ceased consistent with those original terms.
- In June 2011 Wills sued UNM for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing seeking unpaid past salaries; four days after service UNM terminated his employment.
- Wills later amended to add a due-process claim (retaliatory termination violated his right of access to courts) and, in a subsequent amendment, a Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) claim alleging UNM abused its authority by retaliating.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 1-012(B)(6); the district court dismissed the contract-related claims and the WPA claim. The court initially denied dismissal of the due-process claim but later granted judgment on the pleadings under Rule 1-012(C), holding the Tort Claims Act (TCA) barred damages for alleged state constitutional violations.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed: (1) WPA claim dismissed for failing to allege a protected communication about an unlawful or improper act; (2) contract claim dismissed because no valid written contract existed as required by Section 37-1-23(A); (3) due-process claim barred by the TCA and Wills’ as-applied constitutional challenge to the TCA failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wills stated a WPA claim based on his lawsuit alleging unpaid salary | Wills: filing the complaint communicated that UNM abused authority by withholding contractually agreed pay; that communication is protected under the WPA | UNM: WPA protects communications exposing unlawful/improper acts serving the public, not private personnel grievances about pay | Held: Dismissed — complaint alleged only that the termination was an abuse, not that Wills communicated about an unlawful/improper act benefiting the public; WPA not implicated |
| Whether Wills could sue for breach based on an implied post-2004 contract | Wills: parties’ conduct (continued payments) created an implied contract continuing original terms | UNM: Section 37-1-23(A) waives governmental liability only for valid written contracts; implied/oral promises insufficient | Held: Dismissed — no valid written contract alleged; Garcia requires written terms to meet the statutory exception |
| Whether Wills’ due-process/access-to-courts claim could proceed for damages against state actors | Wills: TCA’s waiver omission makes it unconstitutional as applied because it denies access to courts and a remedy for retaliation | UNM: TCA preserves sovereign immunity; absent a statutory waiver damages for alleged state constitutional violations are barred | Held: Dismissed — right of access to courts does not guarantee a monetary remedy; the right to sue the government for damages is statutory, so the TCA’s limits do not violate due process/equal protection as applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Valdez v. State, 132 N.M. 667, 54 P.3d 71 (N.M. 2002) (state tort claims act bars suits for damages alleging violations of state constitutional rights absent a waiver)
- Delfino v. Griffo, 150 N.M. 97, 257 P.3d 917 (N.M. 2011) (standard for reviewing dismissal under Rule 1-012(B)(6))
- Garcia v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 121 N.M. 728, 918 P.2d 7 (N.M. 1996) (governmental entities liable on contract only where there is a valid written contract; written personnel policies can satisfy the statute)
- Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 125 N.M. 721, 965 P.2d 305 (N.M. 1998) (recognizes implicit right of access to courts but clarifies it does not create unlimited tort liability or guarantee remedies)
- Marrujo v. State Highway Transp. Dep’t, 118 N.M. 753, 887 P.2d 747 (N.M. 1994) (no fundamental right to sue the government for tort damages; right is statutory and may be limited by the Legislature)