 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gutierrez v. Sundance Indian Jewelry Inc.12/16/1993
aintiff in opposition to the motion for summary judgment raised sufficient questions with regard to the scope of the settlement agreement and the intent of the parties to defeat the motion.
We also reject Defendant's argument that NMOHSA provides Plaintiff his exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge. The common law requires that employers provide employees with a reasonably safe workplace. Public policy in New Mexico prohibits discharging an employee for reporting unsafe working conditions to the Bureau. Finally, we find that the legislature did not intend NMOHSA provide the exclusive remedy for an employee alleging wrongful discharge in retaliation for reporting safety violations.
Therefore the summary judgment of the district court is reversed; each side shall bear its own costs on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BRUCE D. BLACK, Judge
I CONCUR:
THOMAS A. DONNELLY, Judge
HARRIS L HARTZ, Judge (dissenting)
HARTZ, Judge (Dissenting).
The result reached by the majority opinion does not concern me as much as the way it
gets there. The majority's Discussion of both defenses raised by Defendant--(1) accord and satisfaction and (2) absence of a common-law cause of action--glosses over or ignores doctrines that have commanded the respect of the great weight of authority. I fear that the majority's freewheeling opinion will generate a great deal of confusion for practitioners and the courts.
I. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION
As stated in the second sentence of the majority opinion, "the parties entered into a settlement agreement." The question before us is what are the terms, express and implied, of the settlement agreement. Our task is not to determine whether there was ever a contract between the parties, which distinguishes this case from several of the cases relied upon by the majority: ; ; .
The settlement agreement undoubtedly resolved the discrimination complaint filed against Defendant by Plaintiff with the New Mexico Health and Environment Department, Occupational Health and Safety Bureau (the Bureau). The agreement does not specifically address the question of other claims Plaintiff may have had against Defendant. As a matter of ordinary contract law, one could properly describe the settlement agreement as ambiguous on that score. As a matter of public policy, however, courts presume that when parties have settled a dispute they "intended a complete accord and satisfaction of their respective claims against each other arising out of [the facts underlying the explicitly settled dispute]." . "The presumption advances public policy interests in avoiding needless litigation and places on the releasee a burden to prove the contracting parties did not, by the release and settlement, intend an accord and satisfaction." Id. Here, there is no question that the present claim arises out of the same underlying facts as the claim that was explicitly settled. Therefore, Defendant must prevail on its defense of accord and satisfaction unless the presumption of a complete accord and satisfaction is rebutted.
The majority opinion ignores the New Mexico precedent establishing the presumption of a complete accord and satisfaction. Consequently, it does not address Plaintiff's evidence and arguments in terms of whether they rebut the presumption. The opinion speaks only in terms of whether the evidence below and the terms of the settlement agreement establish an ambiguity regarding the existence of an accord and satisfaction covering the present claim. Nevertheless, the matter relied upon by the majority to
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.
|
|