8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Nava v. City of Santa Fegreen2 sentences2024See Deflon v. Sawyers, 2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 19 , 139 N.M. 637 , 137 P.3d 577 ; see also Nava v. City of Santa Fe, 2004-NMSC-039, ¶ 6 , 136 N.M. 647 , 103 P.3d 571 (listing the elements of a hostile work environment claim). 2024See Deflon v. Sawyers, 2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 19 , 139 N.M. 637 , 137 P.3d 577 ; see also Nava v. City of Santa Fe, 2004-NMSC-039, ¶ 6 , 136 N.M. 647 , 103 P.3d 571 (listing the elements of a hostile work environment claim). | 5 | 5 |
Herald v. Board of Regents of the Universitygreen2 sentences2024See Ulibarri, 2006-NMSC- 009, ¶ 12; see also Herald v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 2015-NMCA-104, ¶ 53 , 357 P.3d 438 (providing that, to make out a hostile work environment claim, the harassing conduct must be “so severe and pervasive that the workplace is transformed into a hostile and abusive environment for the employee” (omission, internal quotation 1Even though some sections of the HRA were amended after the incidents giving rise to Sanders’ claims occurred, see, e.g., § 28-1-7 (amended 2019, 2020, 2023), we cite the current version of the HRA throughout this opinion because the ame 2023See Herald v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 2015-NMCA-104, ¶ 53 , 357 P.3d 438 (providing that to make out a hostile work environment claim, the harassing conduct must be “so severe and pervasive that the workplace is transformed into a hostile and abusive environment for the employee” (omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Deflon v. Sawyersgreen2 sentences2024See Deflon v. Sawyers, 2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 19 , 139 N.M. 637 , 137 P.3d 577 ; see also Nava v. City of Santa Fe, 2004-NMSC-039, ¶ 6 , 136 N.M. 647 , 103 P.3d 571 (listing the elements of a hostile work environment claim). 2024See Deflon v. Sawyers, 2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 19 , 139 N.M. 637 , 137 P.3d 577 ; see also Nava v. City of Santa Fe, 2004-NMSC-039, ¶ 6 , 136 N.M. 647 , 103 P.3d 571 (listing the elements of a hostile work environment claim). | 1 | 1 |
Ulibarri v. State of New Mexico Corrections Academygreen2 sentences2019See Ulibarri, 2006-NMSC-009, ¶ 12 (“Simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {15} Ultimately, in the absence of a connection between the incidents alleged by Plaintiff and her protected class or additional facts showing that the alleged actions of her supervisors were severe or unreasonably interfered with her work performance, Plaintiff’s allegations of the events of discrimination do not support a hosti 2019Compare Ulibarri, 2006-NMSC-009, ¶ 13 (concluding no hostile work environment existed based on sexual harassment where, over two months, the “[p]laintiff was told several times by a superior that he found her attractive and was asked on one occasion if she was interested in a relationship”), with Nava v. City of Santa Fe, 2004-NMSC-039, ¶ 14 , 136 N.M. 647 , 103 P.3d 571 (concluding a hostile work environment based on sex discrimination existed where the plaintiff’s employer followed her to her house to monitor how long she took on bathroom breaks, assigned specific calls (rape calls) to the p | 1 | 1 |
Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co.green1 sentence2019See id. ¶ 12; see also Curry, 2014-NMCA-031, ¶ 28 (“Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we may assume no such authority exists.”). {14} Regarding the other allegedly discriminatory incidents recounted by Plaintiff, we note that they were comprised of employment decisions made by her supervisors. | 1 | 1 |
Penry v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topekagreen2 sentences2004See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Sens., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80-81 , 118 S.Ct. 998 , 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998) (noting that a hostile work environment claim could be established by “direct comparative evidence about how the alleged harasser treated members of both sexes in a mixed-sex workplace”); Penry v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 155 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir.1998) (“[Ajctionable conduct is not limited to behavior motivated by sexual desire.”). 2004See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Sens., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80-81 , 118 S.Ct. 998 , 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998) (noting that a hostile work environment claim could be established by “direct comparative evidence about how the alleged harasser treated members of both sexes in a mixed-sex workplace”); Penry v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 155 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir.1998) (“[Ajctionable conduct is not limited to behavior motivated by sexual desire.”). | 1 | 1 |
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.green2 sentences2004See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Sens., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80-81 , 118 S.Ct. 998 , 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998) (noting that a hostile work environment claim could be established by “direct comparative evidence about how the alleged harasser treated members of both sexes in a mixed-sex workplace”); Penry v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 155 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir.1998) (“[Ajctionable conduct is not limited to behavior motivated by sexual desire.”). 2004See Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Sens., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80-81 , 118 S.Ct. 998 , 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998) (noting that a hostile work environment claim could be established by “direct comparative evidence about how the alleged harasser treated members of both sexes in a mixed-sex workplace”); Penry v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 155 F.3d 1257, 1261 (10th Cir.1998) (“[Ajctionable conduct is not limited to behavior motivated by sexual desire.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ocana v. American Furniture Co.
green
2 sentences2014Id. 3 {17} Although West claims that she presented genuine factual disputes regarding her 4 claims for failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, she again fails to 5 expand on what facts were disputed, or how they address the elements required to 6 constitute a hostile work environment claim. 2004Recently, in Ocana, we gave the same interpretation to the NMHRA: “sexual harassment is actionable under a hostile work environment theory when the offensive conduct becomes so severe and pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment in such a manner that the workplace is transformed into a hostile and abusive environment for the employee.” 2004-NMSC-018, ¶ 24 , 135 N.M. 539 , 91 P.3d 58 . {6} The elements of a hostile work environment claim against an employer have generally been stated as: the employee was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; the harassment occurred because of t | 2 | 2004–2014 |
State v. Ruiz
green
2 sentences2023Defendants concede that the admission of “one or two” of these statements was permissible for that purpose, but argue that the word is inherently inflammatory and offensive such that “Plaintiff’s reference to alleged racist statements undoubtedly prejudiced Defendants’ right to a fair trial.” However, “the fact that some jurors might find this evidence offensive or inflammatory does not necessarily require its exclusion.” Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 48 ; State v. Ruiz, 1995-NMCA-007 , ¶ 12, 119 N.M. 515 , 892 P.2d 962 (“[T]he fact that evidence is prejudicial is not grounds for excluding it; exclus 2023Defendants concede that the admission of “one or two” of these statements was permissible for that purpose, but argue that the word is inherently inflammatory and offensive such that “Plaintiff’s reference to alleged racist statements undoubtedly prejudiced Defendants’ right to a fair trial.” However, “the fact that some jurors might find this evidence offensive or inflammatory does not necessarily require its exclusion.” Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 48 ; State v. Ruiz, 1995-NMCA-007 , ¶ 12, 119 N.M. 515 , 892 P.2d 962 (“[T]he fact that evidence is prejudicial is not grounds for excluding it; exclus | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Rojo
green
1 sentence2023Defendants concede that the admission of “one or two” of these statements was permissible for that purpose, but argue that the word is inherently inflammatory and offensive such that “Plaintiff’s reference to alleged racist statements undoubtedly prejudiced Defendants’ right to a fair trial.” However, “the fact that some jurors might find this evidence offensive or inflammatory does not necessarily require its exclusion.” Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 48 ; State v. Ruiz, 1995-NMCA-007 , ¶ 12, 119 N.M. 515 , 892 P.2d 962 (“[T]he fact that evidence is prejudicial is not grounds for excluding it; exclus | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Littell v. Allstate Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2019Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, see Littell, 2008-NMCA-012, ¶ 38 ; Archuleta, 1999-NMCA-113, ¶ 6 , we hold that, as a matter of law, the incidents as alleged by Plaintiff do not rise to the level of severity required to support a hostile work environment claim and a reasonable jury could not conclude her work environment was hostile. 2019Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, see Littell, 2008-NMCA-012, ¶ 38 ; Archuleta, 1999-NMCA-113, ¶ 6 , we hold that, as a matter of law, the incidents as alleged by Plaintiff do not rise to the level of severity required to support a hostile work environment claim and a reasonable jury could not conclude her work environment was hostile. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Smith v. Durden
green
2 sentences2019“Once the moving party has made the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the non-movant to demonstrate the existence of specific evidentiary facts which would require trial on the merits.” See Smith v. Durden, 2012-NMSC-010, ¶ 5 , 276 P.3d 943 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {8} In order to prove a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) by “discriminat[ing] in matters of compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment against any person otherwise qualified because of race, age, rel 2019“Once the moving party has made the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the non-movant to demonstrate the existence of specific evidentiary facts which would require trial on the merits.” See Smith v. Durden, 2012-NMSC-010, ¶ 5 , 276 P.3d 943 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {8} In order to prove a hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) by “discriminat[ing] in matters of compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment against any person otherwise qualified because of race, age, rel | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Archuleta v. LaCuesta
green
2 sentences2019Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, see Littell, 2008-NMCA-012, ¶ 38 ; Archuleta, 1999-NMCA-113, ¶ 6 , we hold that, as a matter of law, the incidents as alleged by Plaintiff do not rise to the level of severity required to support a hostile work environment claim and a reasonable jury could not conclude her work environment was hostile. 2019Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, see Littell, 2008-NMCA-012, ¶ 38 ; Archuleta, 1999-NMCA-113, ¶ 6 , we hold that, as a matter of law, the incidents as alleged by Plaintiff do not rise to the level of severity required to support a hostile work environment claim and a reasonable jury could not conclude her work environment was hostile. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Las Cruces Professional Fire Fighters & International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces
green
2 sentences2007While Allstate presented evidence that could be viewed as inconsistent with such a conclusion, “[t]he question is not whether substantial evidence exists to support the opposite result, but rather whether such evidence supports the result reached.” Las Cruces Prof'l Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces, 1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 12 , 123 N.M. 329 , 940 P.2d 177 . 2007While Allstate presented evidence that could be viewed as inconsistent with such a conclusion, “[t]he question is not whether substantial evidence exists to support the opposite result, but rather whether such evidence supports the result reached.” Las Cruces Prof'l Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces, 1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 12 , 123 N.M. 329 , 940 P.2d 177 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.