N.M. Stat. » Chapter 28 — Human Rights
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 28-2-1 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Chapter 28, Article 2 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Criminal Offender Employment Act".

History: 1953 Comp., § 41-24-1, enacted by Laws 1974, ch. 78, § 1; 2019, ch. 176, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2019 amendment, effective June 14, 2019, changed "Sections 1 through 6 of this act" to "Chapter 28, Article 2 NMSA 1978".

Law reviews. — For note, "Negligent Hiring and Retention - Availability of Action Limited By Foreseeability Requirement," see 10 N.M.L. Rev. 491 (1980).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1977–2012 · leading case: United Rentals Nw., Inc. v. Yearout Mech., Inc., 237 P.3d 728 (N.M. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Rentals Nw., Inc. v. Yearout Mech., Inc., 237 P.3d 728 (N.M. 2010). · cites it 8× “Both statutes were recodified in 1978 as NMSA 1978, Sections 56-7-1 and 56-7-2, respectively, and have been amended from time to time since their original enactment.”
State v. Druktenis, 86 P.3d 1050 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “The view that criminal offenders, including sex offenders, should be given the opportunity of rehabilitation through pursuit of employment is embedded in the following legislative finding contained in the Criminal Offender Employment Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 28-2-1 to -6 (1974, as…”
Howell Ex Rel. Howell v. Burk, 568 P.2d 214 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “On Universal Constructors' cross claim for indemnity, see § 28-2-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Vol. 5, 1975 Supp.”
Varoz v. New Mexico Bd. of Podiatry, 722 P.2d 1176 (N.M. 1986). · cites it 4× “See also Section 28-2-4(A) of the Criminal Offender Employment Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 28-2-1 to -6 (Repl.Pamp. 1983).”
Sais v. NM Dep't. of Corrs., 2012 NMSC 9 (N.M. 2012). · cites it 4× “to make rehabilitation feasible.” Section 28-2-2. Section 28-2-4 governs when a public employee may have such employment revoked for criminal activity, and only discusses certain circumstances involving convictions, not arrests.”
McCoy v. New Mexico Real Est. Comm'n, 614 P.2d 14 (N.M. 1980). · cites it 2× “1978, its decision should be affirmed on the basis of the Criminal Offender Employment Act, Section 28-2-1 to 28-2-6, N.M.S.A. 1978 (COEA).”
In Re Termination of Kibbe, 996 P.2d 419 (N.M. 1999). · cites it 2× “Kibbe contends that his termination violated provisions of the Criminal Offender Employment Act (COEA), NMSA 1978, §§ 28-2-1 to -6 (1974, as amended through 1985, prior to 1997 amendment); alternatively, Kibbe contends that his termination is not supported by substantial…”
Kibbe v. Elida Sch. Dist., 2000 NMSC 006 (N.M. 1999). · cites it 2× “Kibbe contends that his termination violated provisions of the Criminal Offender Employment Act (COEA), NMSA 1978, §§ 28-2-1 to -6 (1974, as amended through 1985, prior to 1997 amendment); alternatively, Kibbe contends that his termination is not supported by substantial…”
Garcia v. State Bd. of Educ., 694 P.2d 1371 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “The Criminal Offender Employment Act (COEA), NMSA 1978, Sections 28-2-1 to -6 (Repl.Pamp. 1983), states in Section 28-2-4: A.”
Weiss v. New Mexico Bd. of Dentistry, 798 P.2d 175 (N.M. 1990). “1989)) and by the Criminal Offender Employment Act (NMSA 1978, Sections 28-2-1 to -6 (Repl. Pamp.1987)).”
Sais v. New Mexico Dept. of Corr., 275 P.3d 104 (N.M. 2012). · cites it 4× “NMSA 1978, § 28-2-4 (1997) {28} Respondent argues that the Policy is unlawful based upon the New Mexico Criminal Offender Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 28-2-1 to -6 (1974, as amended through 1997).”
Romero v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 691 P.2d 72 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “ovided in applicable part: Employees may be dismissed, demoted, or suspended only for just cause, such as inefficiency, incompetency, misconduct, negligence, insubordination, for performance which continues to be inadequate after reasonable efforts have been made to correct it,…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.