N.M. Stat. » Chapter 30 — Criminal Offenses
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 30-13-3 (2026)

Blacklisting

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Blacklisting consists of an employer or his agent preventing or attempting to prevent a former employee from obtaining other employment.

Whoever commits blacklisting is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Upon request, an employer may give an accurate report or honest opinion of the qualifications and the performance of a former employee. An employer is defined as any person employing labor or the agent of such person.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-13-3, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 13-3.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For criminal libel, see 30-11-1 NMSA 1978.

For constitutional provision guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press, and making truth a defense in criminal prosecutions for libel, see N.M. Const., art. II, § 17.

Union affiliation. — Workers could not be dismissed from employment because of their labor union affiliations. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 61 S. Ct. 845, 85 L. Ed. 1271 (1941).

Law reviews. — For comment, "Public Accommodations in New Mexico: The Right to Refuse Service for Reasons Other Than Race or Religion," see 10 Nat. Resources J. 635 (1970).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 48 Am. Jur. 2d Labor and Labor Relations § 669.

Blacklist, libel or slander, 66 A.L.R. 1499.

Publication of libel by blacklist for purpose of statute of limitation, 42 A.L.R.3d 807.

Validity, construction, and operation of state blacklisting statutes, 95 A.L.R.5th 1.

Federal pre-emption of whistleblower's state-law action for wrongful retaliation, 99 A.L.R. Fed. 775. Who has "participated" in investigation proceeding or hearing and is thereby protected from retaliation under § 704(a) of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USCA § 2000e- 3(a)), 149 A.L.R. Fed. 431.

51 C.J.S. Labor Relations § 8; 30 C.J.S. Employer-Employee § 58.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1979–2020 · leading case: Andrews v. Stearns-Roger, Inc., 602 P.2d 624 (N.M. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Andrews v. Stearns-Roger, Inc., 602 P.2d 624 (N.M. 1979). · cites it 4× “Section 30-13-3, N.M.S.A.1978. In their Second Amended Complaint, employees have alleged that certain defendants did “prepare and circulate a blacklist of the plaintiffs, requesting that building contractors operating in San Juan County, New Mexico, and in other locations, as…”
Hare v. Baur, No. 2:19-cv-01091 (D.N.M. Dec. 30, 2020). · cites it 3× “§ 1981 , and for various state law claims under N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-13-3 , 41-4-1–30, and 41-7-1–6.”
Hare v. Baur, No. 2:19-cv-01091 (D.N.M. Aug. 6, 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 1981 , and N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-13-3 , 41-4-1–30, and 41-7-1–6.”
Hare v. Baur, No. 2:19-cv-01091 (D.N.M. Sept. 28, 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 1981 ; and N.M. Stat. §§ 30-13-3, 41-4-1 to 41-4-30, and 41-7-1 to 41-7-6.”
Hare v. Baur, No. 2:19-cv-01091 (D.N.M. Oct. 15, 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 1981 , N.M. Stat. §§ 30-13-3, 41-4-1 to 41- 4-30, and 41-7-1 to 41-7-6.”
State v. Wood, No. 29,766 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2011). · cites it 2× “Nor did the State 10 stipulate to ownership at the hearing on Defendant’s motion. 11 As a result, we conclude that Defendant’s reliance on Foulenfont is misplaced.”
Hare v. Baur, No. 2:19-cv-01091 (D.N.M. Apr. 1, 2020). “§§ 30-13-3 , 41-4-1–30, and 41-7-1–6. (Id.”
N.M. Stat. § 30-13-3(B): 1 case
State v. Wood, No. 29,766 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2011). “Nor did the State 10 stipulate to ownership at the hearing on Defendant’s motion. 11 As a result, we conclude that Defendant’s reliance on Foulenfont is misplaced.”
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.