MICHAEL L. LOBATO, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION, et al., Defendants.
Docket No. 32,917
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
December 14, 2011
Opinion Number: 2012-NMSC-002
DANIELS, Chief Justice.
CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, Bruce Douglas Black, U.S. District Court Judge
Santiago E. Juarez
Albuquerque, NM
for Plaintiff
Narvaez Law Firm, PA
Henry F. Narvaez
Albuquerque, NM
for Defendants
OPINION
DANIELS, Chief Justice.
{1} This case is before us on certification from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to answer two questions on whether the New Mexico Department of Labor‘s1 Charge of Discrimination
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{2} In 2008, Plaintiff Michael L. Lobato filed two complaints and one amended complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging his employer, the New Mexico Environment Department, with discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Civil Rights Act),
{3} According to the instructions on the NMHRD‘s Charge of Discrimination form, Plaintiff was required to (1) name the “Employer, Labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency” he believed discriminated against him; (2) provide that entity‘s street address and phone number; and (3) explain the “PARTICULARS” of his charge. Nothing on the NMHRD Charge of Discrimination form instructed Plaintiff to add any identification of individual agency employees involved in the alleged discrimination.
{4} In December 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico stating in part that the EEOC “complaints [had been] processed to conclusion.” This judicial complaint was based on the same work-related incidents and alleged, among other claims, violations of both the Civil Rights Act and the NMHRA. Plaintiff named as defendants the New Mexico Environment Department and multiple employees of the department. The individually named defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss, arguing that (1) individuals are not subject to liability under the Civil Rights Act, and (2) Plaintiff did not exhaust his NMHRA administrative remedies and preserve his right to sue any individual defendant not specifically identified in Plaintiff‘s original NMHRD Charge of Discrimination forms.
{5} The United States District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the Civil Rights Act claims. On the NMHRA claims, the district court denied the motion for those defendants identified by their job positions within the “PARTICULARS” narrative on Plaintiff‘s Charge of Discrimination forms, and sua sponte certified two questions
(1) Does the NMHRD‘s Charge of Discrimination form, which instructs filers to identify the alleged discrimination by the name and address of the discriminating agency or entity but not the individual actor, provide a fair and adequate opportunity to exhaust administrative remedies against individual actors under the NMHRA?
(2) If the Charge of Discrimination form is inadequate, what remedy is proper for a plaintiff who used the NMHRD form and consequently failed to exhaust administrative remedies against individuals?
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
{6} This case requires us to interpret the language of the NMHRA, a matter of law we review de novo. See State v. Nick R., 2009-NMSC-050, ¶ 11, 147 N.M. 182, 218 P.3d 868. When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is “to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” Id. “To determine legislative intent, we look not only to the language used in the statute, but also to the purpose to be achieved and the wrong to be remedied.” Hovet v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2004-NMSC-010, ¶ 10, 135 N.M. 397, 89 P.3d 69.
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Charge of Discrimination Form Violates the NMHRA.
{7} We first address the question of whether the NMHRD Charge of Discrimination form provides a fair and adequate opportunity to pursue individual liability claims as provided by the NMHRA. Plaintiff argues that the official form is inadequate and misleading because the form directed him to name the discriminating agency, but nothing in the form instructed him to identify individual agency employees involved in the alleged incidents. Defendants argue that any inadequacy in the form is rectified because (1) Plaintiff filed the NMHRD‘s Charge of Discrimination forms with the EEOC only, which supplements the form‘s information with an intake questionnaire in which Plaintiff mentioned some of the individuals relevant to his claim, and (2) some individual defendants could be identified in the narrative of the “PARTICULARS” section. Defendants take the position that both the NMHRD Charge of Discrimination form‘s “PARTICULARS” section and the supplemental EEOC questionnaire provide means to identify individual respondents and satisfy administrative exhaustion requirements. Based on the statutory language of the NMHRA and its legislative purpose, Defendants’ arguments fail.
{8} The NMHRA is a comprehensive scheme enacted in 1969 for the primary purpose of providing administrative and judicial remedies for unlawful discrimination in the workplace. See §§ 28-1-7, -10, -11; see also Mitchell-Carr, 1999-NMSC-025, ¶ 16 (recognizing that the NMHRA provides “the right, the procedure, and the remedy” for discrimination complaints) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Unlike the Civil Rights Act, the NMHRA permits unlawful discrimination claims against individuals. See
{10} While the names and addresses of individuals are superfluous to the federal Civil Rights Act claims, this information is critical to preserving judicial remedies against individuals under the NMHRA. NMHRA claims require administrative exhaustion before a plaintiff can bring suit. See
B. Preserving Plaintiff‘s Access to the Courts Outweighs Administrative Notice and Prejudice Concerns.
{11} Having held that Plaintiff did not have a fair and adequate opportunity to exhaust administrative remedies against individual defendants, we turn to the question of the appropriate remedy for Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues we should waive administrative exhaustion because the administrative remedies provided by the state are inadequate, relying on Franco v. Carlsbad Municipal Schools, 2001-NMCA-042, ¶ 20, 130 N.M. 543, 28 P.3d 531 (holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required when the agency‘s failure to meaningfully inform an employee of those remedies thwarted the employee‘s ability to invoke them). Defendants argue that waiving administrative exhaustion violates their notice protections under the NMHRA, see
{12} The doctrine of administrative exhaustion arose as a way to coordinate the roles of the administrative and judicial
{13} In Franco, a school employee was given a written termination notice and a copy of the state regulations on termination but was not told of his right to present evidence at a special session of the school board, planned for that evening, at which his final termination would be voted on. Franco, 2001-NMCA-042, ¶ 6. Whether intentional or inadvertent, the school district‘s own procedures thwarted the employee‘s ability to exhaust—or even initiate—the administrative remedies afforded to him by statute. Id. ¶ 20. Franco held that in those circumstances exhaustion of the administrative remedies was not required. See id.
{14} In this case, like Franco, Plaintiff relied on the administrative procedures he was instructed to follow, and that reliance now threatens to deny him the statutory remedies to which he is entitled. Plaintiff‘s NMHRA claims are now time-barred. See
{15} To avoid this situation in the future and to honor legislative intent, we suggest the NMHRD revise its Charge of Discrimination form to instruct filers in plain language to include the names and addresses of any individuals involved. This will allow claimants to have an opportunity to pursue all of their rights under the NMHRA and will provide named defendants with notice and opportunity to be heard in all proceedings.
III. CONCLUSION
{16} In order to preserve individual liability claims under the NMHRA, we answer the two certified questions by holding (1) the NMHRD‘s Charge of Discrimination form failed to provide Plaintiff a fair and adequate opportunity to exhaust administrative remedies against individual defendants; and (2) because of this inadequacy, Plaintiff is not required to have exhausted administrative remedies against the previously unnamed individual defendants before pursuing his suit in the United States District Court.
{17} IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHARLES W. DANIELS, Chief Justice
WE CONCUR:
PATRICIO M. SERNA, Justice
PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice
RICHARD C. BOSSON, Justice
STANLEY WHITAKER, Judge, Sitting by designation
Topic Index for Lobato v. NMED, Docket No. 32,917
| ST | STATUTES |
| ST-IP | Interpretation |
| ST-LI | Legislative Intent |
| ST-RC | Rules of Construction |
| AL | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE |
| AL-AA | Administrative Appeal |
| AL-HR | Hearings |
| AL-JR | Judicial Review |
| AL-LI | Legislative Intent |
| AL-NO | Notice |
| CR | CIVIL RIGHTS |
| CR-DS | Discrimination |
| CR-PR | Procedure |
| FL | FEDERAL LAW |
| FL-CR | Civil Rights |
| FL-PR | Procedure |