New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 44-9-11 (2026)

Employer interference with employee disclosure; private

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

action for retaliation.
A. An employer shall not make, adopt or enforce a rule, regulation or policy
preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law
enforcement agency or from acting in furtherance of a fraud against taxpayers action,
including investigating, initiating, testifying or assisting in an action filed or to be filed
pursuant to the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act [44-9-1 NMSA 1978].

B. An employer shall not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, deny
promotion to or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and
conditions of employment because of the lawful acts of the employee on behalf of the
employee or others in disclosing information to a government or law enforcement
agency or in furthering a fraud against taxpayers action, including investigating,
initiating, testifying or assisting in an action filed or to be filed pursuant to the Fraud
Against Taxpayers Act.

C. An employer that violates Subsection B of this section shall be liable to the
employee for all relief necessary to make the employee whole, including reinstatement
with the same seniority status that the employee would have had but for the violation,
two times the amount of back pay with interest on the back pay, compensation for any
special damage sustained as a result of the violation and, if appropriate, punitive
damages. In addition, an employer shall be required to pay the litigation costs and
reasonable attorney fees of the employee. An employee may bring an action pursuant
to this section in any court of competent jurisdiction.

History: Laws 2007, ch. 40, § 11.

ANNOTATIONS

Effective dates. — Laws 2007, ch. 40, § 16 makes the act effective July 1, 2007.

Severability. — Laws 2007, ch. 40, § 15 provides for the severability of the Fraud
Against Taxpayers Act if any part or application thereof is held invalid.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2023 · leading case: Hunt v. Cent. Consol. Sch. Dist., 951 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D.N.M. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hunt v. Cent. Consol. Sch. Dist., 951 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D.N.M. 2013). · cites it 14× “The Defendants responded that § 44-9-11 is not a stand-alone provision, but provides a cause of action only for retaliation against employees for reporting specific fraudulent actions which § 44-9-3 sets forth.”

United States v. Dental Dreams, LLC, 307 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D.N.M. 2018). “§ 27-14-12 , § 44-9-11(B). An employee does not need to have filed a qui tam action for whistleblower protection.”

Mascarenas v. Vill. of Angel Fire, New Mexico (D.N.M. 2023). · cites it 12× “Both parties urge different interpretations of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 44-9-11 (B). N.M. Stat.”

— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-11(A) — 1 case

Hunt v. Cent. Consol. Sch. Dist., 951 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D.N.M. 2013). “The Defendants responded that § 44-9-11 is not a stand-alone provision, but provides a cause of action only for retaliation against employees for reporting specific fraudulent actions which § 44-9-3 sets forth.”

— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-11(B) — 2 cases

United States v. Dental Dreams, LLC, 307 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D.N.M. 2018). “§ 27-14-12 , § 44-9-11(B). An employee does not need to have filed a qui tam action for whistleblower protection.”

— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-11(C) — 1 case

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.