 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gutierrez v. Sundance Indian Jewelry Inc.12/16/1993
BLACK, Judge. [117 NM Page 42] Paul Gutierrez ("Plaintiff") filed a discrimination complaint with the New Mexico Health and Environment Department, Occupational Health and Safety Bureau ("the Bureau"), alleging that he was discharged by Sundance Indian Jewelry, Inc. ("Defendant") in retaliation for requesting that the Bureau investigate chemical usage and employee health problems at Defendant's workplace. The parties entered into a settlement agreement which was approved by the Bureau on January 11, 1990. On May 14, 1990, Plaintiff filed a complaint in district court seeking damages due to fraud and wrongful
discharge. Defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff's sole remedy for his claim of wrongful discharge was through the prior administrative claim brought before the Bureau. Defendant further argued that Plaintiff's claim for wrongful discharge was barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. The district court entered a partial summary judgment holding that the settlement agreement approved by the Bureau settled Plaintiff's claim for wrongful discharge and therefore gave rise to an accord and satisfaction of the wrongful discharge claim set forth in Plaintiff's district court complaint. (Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his fraud claim.) Plaintiff appeals.
We hold that the record presents questions of material fact precluding summary judgment on Defendant's accord and satisfaction theory; that Plaintiff's complaint states a common-law cause of action for wrongful discharge; and that the New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Act, NMSA 1978, ยงยง 50-9-1 to -25 (Repl. Pamp. 1988 & Cum. Supp. 1992) ("NMOHSA"), does not provide Plaintiff's exclusive remedy.
I. FACTS
Plaintiff originally contacted the Bureau to investigate the possibility that the use of certain chemicals at Defendant's workplace was causing Plaintiff, and other employees, to suffer chest pains and swollen lips. Plaintiff alleged that he was wrongfully discharged for reporting this safety condition.
After an investigation, the Bureau was apparently willing to file a suit on Plaintiff's behalf pursuant to Section 50-9-25. Plaintiff, however, settled the administrative proceeding by agreeing to have all information regarding his termination removed from Defendant's files and requiring that Defendant provide "neutral or better" references to anyone who inquired about Plaintiff's work history. Defendant also agreed to post in conspicuous locations in its workplace copies of a notice stating that Defendant would not discriminate against any employee for exercising such employee's rights under NMOHSA. The settlement further required that Defendant notify the Chief of the Occupational Health and Safety Bureau ("the Bureau Chief") in writing of all steps it had taken to comply with the settlement agreement. Finally, the settlement agreement provided that it was not to be used by Plaintiff or the Bureau as an admission of wrongdoing by Defendant.
Approximately five months after entering into the settlement agreement and terminating the administrative proceeding, Plaintiff filed a complaint in district court seeking damages due to fraud and wrongful discharge. In that complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he was a mechanic by trade and had been lured by Defendant from his mechanic position with promises of more pay and participation in a profit-sharing plan. He claimed that "as a result of Plaintiff contacting OSHA Plaintiff was fired from his position at Sundance Jewelry." Plaintiff contended that his discharge was wrongful a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|