1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Jul y

21, 201 5 4 N O. 33, 465 5 JO HN WI LLS, M.D., 6 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 7 v
. 8 BOA RD OF RE GEN TS OF THE 9 UN IVER SITY OF NE W MEX ICO and 10 UN IVER SITY OF NE W MEX ICO HE ALT H 11 SCIE NCES CENTER, 12 D ef

en da nts -Appe lle es . 13 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 14 C lay C am pb el l, D ist ri ctJu dg e 15 Vald ez an d Whi te Law Firm , LLC 16 T im oth y

L
. Whit e 17 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 18 fo r Appe llant 19 Sh eeh an & Sh eeh an , P.A. 20 Q ue nti n S m ith 21 Le ah M. Stevens-Block 22 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 23 for Appellees16 Plaintiff does not raise any issue on app eal re garding his claim of a bre ach 1 17 of the c ove na nt o f good

f ai th and f ai r de al ing

. 1 OPIN ION 2 KEN NED Y, Judge. 3 { 1} Plaintiff John W ills, M. D. sued the B oard of Regents of the University of N ew 4 Me xic o a nd the U niv er sity of N ew Me xic o He al th S ci en ce s C en te r (D ef en da nts ) fo r 5 br ea ch of co nt ract and , r el at ed ly , br ea chof the c ove na nt o f good

f ai th and f

ai r 6 de al ing

. H e la te r am en de d hi s c om pla int to in cl ude c la im s of avio la tio n of

due 7 process and a violatio n of the Ne w Mexico Whistlebl ower Protection Ac t (the W PA ), 8 N MS A 197 8, §§ 1 0- 16C -1 to -6 ( 2010 ), on the gr ound tha t D ef en da nts te rm ina te d hi s 9 em plo ym en t i n r et al ia tio n f

or his ini tia tio n of this law sui t. O n D ef en da nts ’ m oti on, 1 0 t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd i s mi s s e dP l a i n t i f f’s c o n t r a c t - r e l a t e dc l a i ms a n dh i s WP A c l a i m. 11 T he c ourt l at er

gr an te d D ef

en da nts ’ m oti on f

or aj ud gm en t onthe ple ad ing s a s to 1 2 P l a i n t i f

f ’s du e p r o c e s s c l a i m. 13 { 2} On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in dism issin g his breach 14 of c ontra ct a nd W PAc la im s and in ent er ing j udgm en t on the ple ad ing s as t o hi s du e

1 15 pr oc es s cl ai m . W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco ur t d id no t er r, an d we a ffi rm .2

1 BACKGRO UND 2 { 3} Pl ai nt iff wa s hi re d to the pos iti on o f Ch ai r of the D ep ar

tm en t of 3 A ne sth es iol ogy

a nd C ri tic al Care Me dic ine at the U niv er sity of N ewMe xic o H ea lth 4 Sci en ces Ce nte r in S ep te m be r 2002
. P ur suant t o atw o- y ear em plo ym en t c ontra ct , 5 D ef en da nts ag re ed to pay Pl ai nti ff a bas e sa lary plu s a supple m en ta l sal ar y . A ft er the 6 two-y ear term

of the contract expired, De fendants c ontin ued to pay Plaintiff’ s salary 7 in an am ount co nsi ste nt w iththe pa ym en t- re la te d te rm s of the or igi na l c ontra ct

unt il 8 2009
. Af

ter 2009 Defe ndant s stopp ed pay ing Plaintiff pursuant to those origin al 9 co ntr ac t paym en t- re la te d te rm s. 10 { 4} InJun e 2011 , P la int if f fi le d ac om

pla int f or br ea chof

c ontra ct a nd b re ac h of 11 the c ove na nt o f good

f ai th an d fa ir de al ing ( the ini tia l c om pla int ) by w hic h he sou ght 12 to re co ve r “ pa st due sa lari es ” tha t we re unpa id sinc e 2009
. Pl ai nti ff al le ge d th at the 13 te rm s of

the e xpi re d co ntr ac t ha d be en“ co nti nue d by the a ct s of

the pa rt ie s and the 14 subs eque nt pay

m en t of sa lary to [P ] la int if

f pe r the te rm s of

the [ or igi na l] c ontra ct ” 15 an d, by

f ai lin g to pa y

him in ac co rd w iththo se te rm s, D ef

en da nts w er e in b re ac h of 16 their contractual obligation

. Approxim ately four day s after De fendants wer e served 17 wit h P la in ti ff’s in it ia l co m pl ai nt , Defen da nt s t erm in at edhi s emplo ym en t. 18 { 5} A ft er

D ef en da nts te rm ina te d hi s e m plo ym en t, P la int i f

f am e n d e d h i s c om pla int , 19 ad din g a cl ai m fo r re ta lia tor y vio la tio n of due pr oc es s. I n su ppor t of his due pr oc es s3

1 cl ai m , P la int if

f al le ge d that by te rm ina tin g his em plo ym en t in ret al ia tio n for f ili ng the 2 ini tia l co m

pla int , D ef

en da nts vio la te d Pl ai nti ff ’ s co nst itu tio na l ri ght of ac ce ss to the 3 co urts. L at er , in a thi rd a m en de d c om

pla int , P la int if

f ad de d a ne w cl ai m

in w hic h he 4 al le ge d tha t, by re ta lia tin g ag ai nst him fo r fi lin g the ini tia l co m pla int , De fe ndants 5 ab us edth ei r au th or it y

in vi ol at io n o f th e WPA. 6 { 6} D ef

en da nts m ove d to dis m iss Pl ai nti ff ’ s th ir d a m en de d c om

pla int pur suant t o 7 Rule 1-012(B)(6) N MRA on the groun d that it failed to state an y claim upon which 8 re lie f co uld

be gr an te d. F or

r ea sons tha t are dis cu sse d la te r in thi s O pin ion , the 9 dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d D ef en da nts ’ m oti on t o di sm iss P la int if f’ s c la im s r el at ed

to 10 br ea chof

c ontra ct a nd b re ac h of

the c ove na nt of good fa ith an d f ai r de al ing , a s w el l 11 as his W P A c l a i m . A s t o P l a i nt i f f ’ s du e pr oc e ss c l a i m , t he di str i c t c ourtdenied 12 Defen dants ’ m oti on t o di sm iss on the gr ound tha t “ a publ ic e m

plo y er m ay not ta ke 13 adve rs e em

plo ym en t a ct iona ga ins t a pub lic e m

plo y ee f or tha t e m plo y ee f ili ng a 1 4 l aw s u i t [. ]” 15 { 7} D ef

en da nts a ga in s ough t dism iss al of P la int if f’ s du e pr oc es s c la im

in a m oti on 16 fo r a j udgm en t on the ple ad ing s pur suant to Ru le 1- 012( C). Se e Gla se r v . L eB us , 17 2012 -N MS C- 012, ¶

8, 276 P
. 3d 9 59 ( “ A j udgm en t onthe ple ad ing s is tr ea te d a s a 18 m oti on to dism iss w he n the distri ct co urt cons ide rs m at te rs co nta ine d so le ly w ith in 19 the pleadings .” ). In th e m otion for a j udgm ent on the pleadin gs, D efendants argued4

1 that, insofar a s Plaintiff sought to recover dam ages fr o m De fendants for an alleged 2 vio la tio n of

his co ns ti tu tiona l r igh t of a cc es s to the c ourts, his c la im w as ba rr ed

by 3 the N ewMe xic o T ort C la im s A ct ( the T CA ), N MS A 1978 , §§ 4 1- 4- 1 to - 30 ( 1976 , 4 as am ended throug h 201 5). In suppo rt of their argum ent, D ef en d an t s cited Ne w 5 Me xic o c as e law f

or the pr opos iti on t ha t “ ab se nt a w ai ve r of

im m uni ty und er the 6 [T CA ] , ape rs on m ay not sue the s ta te f

or da m ag es f

or vio la tio n of

asta te 7 constitu tional right.” V ald ez v . Sta te , 200 2- N MS C- 028, ¶ 12, 132 N
. M. 667 , 54 P
. 3d 8 71 (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). Plaintiff conceded that this was 9 a co rr ec t st at em en t of

the law ; he a rg ue d inr es pons e, how ev er , tha t D ef en da nts ’ 10 m otion for a j udgm ent on the pleadings shou ld be denied because the T CA’ s “ failure 11 to p er

m it a re m edy

f or avio la tio n of

apub lic e m

plo y ee ’ s f

undam en ta l and 12 co n s t i tutio nal right of access to the courts m akes the [T CA] unconst itutio nal as 13 applied” in thi s case. 14 { 8} Insup port of

his a rg um en t tha t the T CA w as unc onst itu tio na l as app lie d in thi s 1 5 ca s e , P l a i n t i f

f a r g u e d t h a t a c c e s s t o t h e c o u rt s i s a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t a nd t ha t by 16 de pr ivi ng him of ac ce ss t o th e co urts and, c onc om itantl y , ar em edy in thi s c as e, the 17 T CAvio la te d hi s rig ht to e qua l pr ote ct ion

. P la int if f al so arg ue d th at

he ha d a 18 funda m en ta l r igh t t o “ a m eans t o ar em edy , ” an d to the ex te nt tha t the T CAba rr ed his5

1 ability to exercise the r ight to seek a rem edy in this instance, its application vio lated 2 his sub stanti ve a nd p ro ce dur al due pr oc es s r igh ts. 3 { 9} T he dis tr ic t c ourt w as not pe rs ua de d by

P la int if f’ s c onst itu tio na l arg um en ts. 4 H av ing c onsi de re d D ef en da nts ’ m oti on f

or aj udgm en t onthe ple ad in gs a nd 5 Pl ai nti ff

’ s r es pons e, the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d the m oti on f or aj udgm en t onthe 6 p l e a d i n g s , t h e r e b y d i s mi s s i n g P l a i n t i f f ’s du e p r o c e s s c l a i m. 7 { 10} On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the f a c tual allegations in his com plaint satis fied 8 the plain langu age of the W PA and that the district court’s dism issal of his W PA 9 claim wa s fou n d ed on an erroneous interpretation of the law. H e also argues that 10 be ca use he ha d an im

pli ed e m plo ym en t c ontra ct , he w as le ga lly e nti tle d to sue 11 D ef en da nts f or br ea chof

c ontra ct a nd tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in co nclu ding 12 oth er w ise

. A nd, f

ina lly , r ei te ra tin g th e ar gum en t tha t he m ad e in r es pons e to 13 De fendants’ m otion for a j udgm ent on the pleadin gs, he ar gues that the dis trict court 1 4 e rr e di n d i s mi s s i n g h i s du e p r o c e s s c l a i m. 15 { 11} W e co nc lud e tha t be ca use D ef en da nts ’ br ea chof

c ontra ct c la im w as not 1 6 f o u n d e dup o n av a l i dw r i t t e n c o n t r a c t , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l y d i s mi s s e dh i s c l a i m. 17 W e furthe r co nc lud e tha t the al le ga tio ns in Pl ai nti ff ’ s co m pla int did not sta te a cl ai m 18 unde r the W PA
. A nd, fi na lly , w e co nc lud e tha t Pl ai nti ff ’ s c onst itu tio na l a tta ck

on the6

1 T CAis not supp orte d by the re le va nt l aw , a nd w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t 2 on th e p le ad in gs as t o P la in ti ff’s due pro ces s cl ai m . 3 S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w 4 { 12} W e re vie wde nov o adis tr ic t c ou rt’s dec isi on t o di sm iss ac as e fo r fa ilure to 5 st at e a cl ai m

un de r Ru le 1- 01 2( B)(6 ). D el fin o v . G rif

fo , 201 1- N MS C- 015, ¶

9, 150 6 N
. M. 97, 257 P
. 3d 9 17. “ D ism iss al s un de r Ru le 1- 012( B) (6 ) ar e pr ope r w he n th e 7 claim asserted is legallydeficient. ” I d. “ In r ev ie w ing adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to 8 dis m iss fo r fa ilure to sta te a cl ai m , w e ac ce pt a ll w el l- ple ad ed f ac tua l a lle ga tio ns i n 9 th e co m

pl ai nt as tru e an d reso lv e al l do ub ts in fav or of su ffi ci en cy of th e co m pl ai nt .” 10 Id

. (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). The foregoing stand ard of r eview 11 al so a ppl ie s to adis tr ic t c ourt’ s e ntr y of j udgm en t onthe ple ad ing s pu rs ua nt t o R ule 12 1- 01 2( C). Vil l. of Ang el Fir e v. Bd. of C nt y. Co mm’rs of

Co lf ax Cn ty ., 20 10 -NMCA13 03 8, ¶ 5 , 14 8 N.M. 8 04 , 24 2 P .3d 37 1. 14 P lai nt if

f’ s W P A C lai m 15 { 13} Plaintiff’ s W PA claim wa s based on the allegation that Defendants retaliate d 16 against him

for fi l i n g the initial com plaint byterm inating his em ploy m ent and that 17 th is ret al ia to ry

act co ns ti tu te d “ an ab us e o f au th or it y ” as th at te rm is us edin th e WPA. 18 See § 10 -1 6C -2 (E )( 3)

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm issed Pl ai nti ff ’ s W PAc la im

on the 19 gr ound

tha t P la int if

f’ s al le ga tio ns did not show tha t Pl ai nti ff en ga ge d in an y a ct ivi ty7

1 that is protec ted by the W PA
. On a ppeal, P laintiff argues that the district court err ed 2 in d ism iss ing his c la im be cau se th e al le ga tio ns i n hi s th ir d a m en de d c om pla int 3 sa ti sf ie d t he “ pl ai n l an gu ag e” o f th e WPA. 4 { 14} T he W PApr ovi de s th at it is un la wfu l fo r a publ ic e m plo y er to “ ta ke a ny 5 re ta lia tor

y ac tio n ag ai nst a publ ic em plo y ee be ca

use the publ ic em

ploy ee . . . 6 co m m uni ca te s to the publ ic em

plo y er or athi rd pa rty inf orm at ionabout

a n a ct ionor 7 a fa ilure to ac t tha t the pub lic e m plo y ee be lie ve s ingoo d f

ai th c onst itu te s anunl aw fu l 8 or im proper act[. ] ” Se ction 10 -16C-3(A ). In re levant part, the W PA d ef i n es an 9 “ unl aw fu l or

im pr ope r ac t” a s an “ ac tio n or f ai lure to ac t onthe pa rt

of apub lic 10 em ploy er that . . . consti tutes . . . an abuse of authority [. ] ” Se ction 10 -16C-2(E )(3). 11 Thus, in order to state a legally viable claim under the W PA , P laintiff w as required 12 to al le ge tha t be ca

use P la int if

f co m m uni ca te d w ithD ef

en da nts or

athi rd pa rty about 13 Defen da nt s’ abu se of a ut ho rit y , Defen da nt s re ta li at edag ai ns t h im

. 14 { 15} Inhis c om

pla int , P la int if

f fa ile d to a lle ge th at

D e f e n d an t s r et al ia te d a ga ins t hi m 15 be ca use he co m

m uni ca te d w ithathi rd

pa rty or w ithD ef en da nts a bout D ef en da nts ’ 16 ab use of au tho ri ty . Ra the r, P la int if f al le ge d on ly

tha t the a ct

of r et al ia tio n, tha t i s, the 17 term ination of his em

ploy m ent, constitu ted an abuse of authority

. Beca use the W PA 18 exclusivelyprotects an em ploy ee’ s com

m unication s, by

failing to allege that 19 Defe ndants r et al ia te d a ga ins t hi m be ca use he c om

m uni ca te d a

bout “ anunl aw fu l or8

1 im pr ope r ac t” a s th at

te rm is de fi ne d inthe W PA , P la int if f om itt ed the el em ent of 2 co m m un ic at io n th at was es se nt ia l to hi s W PA cl ai m . A m . F ed ’n of Sta te Cn ty
. A nd 3 M un. E m ps. Co unc il 18 v. Sta te , 2013 -N MC A -1 06, ¶ 6, 314 P
. 3d 6 74 ( re co gni zi ng 4 tha t t o w ith stand d ism iss al f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im , the f ac ts p le ad ed

m ust m ee t the 5 es se nti al e le m en ts o f the c la im ). P la int if f’ s arg um en t on ap pe al tha t D ef en da nts 6 vio la te d th e W PAw he n th ey ab use d the ir au tho ri ty by re ta lia tin g ag ai nst him is not 7 suppor t e d by any f a c t s or b y a ny l a ng ua ge o f

t he W P A a nd

i s, t he r e fore, 8 unpersuasiv e. 9 { 16} O n ap pe al , Pl ai nti ff ex pa nds his W PA the or y . H e nowa rg ue s th at

by f ili ng the 10 initial com

plaint, “ he wa s com

m unicating to both his publ ic em ploy er and to a third 11 pa rty via the pub lic r ec or d” that D ef en da nts w er e ab usi ng the ir auth or ity

by 12 w ith hol din g his “ co ntr ac tua lly ag re ed -u pon pa y . ” A lth ough Pl ai nti ff did not c le ar ly 13 ar tic ula te thi s th eo ry

be low , it m ay r ea sona bly ha ve be en inf

er re d fr om his c om pla int 14 an d, t he refo re, we wil l co ns id er i t o n app eal

. Id

. (stating dism issal is im

proper wher e 15 the essential elem ents of the claim m ay reasonably be inferr ed from

the alleged fac ts); 16 D el fin o , 201 1- N MS C- 015, ¶ 9 ( sta tin g th at

the app el la te co urts m

ust r es olv e al l 17 do ub ts in fav orof t he su ffi ci en cy of t he co m

pl ai nt ). 18 { 17} D ef

en da nts a rg ue tha t wh ist le blo w er pr ote ct ionlaw s, inc lud ing the W PA , do 1 9 not protect an em

ploy ee’ s “ com

m unication s ” a b o u ta p er s o n al empl o ym en tg ri ev an ce.9

1 Ra the r, D ef

en da nts a rg ue , the pur

po s e o f wh i s t l e b l o w e r pr ote ct ionlaw s ge ne ra lly a nd 2 the W PA spe ci fi ca lly is t o pr ote ct e m plo y ee s w ho r isk

the ir ow n j ob s ec ur ity

f or the 3 good of the pub lic by

dis cl osi ng the unl aw fu l and i m pr ope r ac tiv iti es of

pub lic 4 of fi ci al s. B ec au se P la int if f’ s a t- iss ue law sui t “ co m m uni ca tio n” pe rt ai ned on ly to 5 w he the r D ef

en da nts w er e re qui re d to pa y Pl ai nti ff a cc or din g to the te rm s of the 6 original contract, De fendants c ontend that the com m unication wa s not on e that w as 7 pr ot ect edby the W PA. 8 { 18} Pl ai nti ff

ha s c onc ed ed

tha t the br each of c ontra ct a lle ga tio ns tha t he 9 co m m un ic at edin hi s i ni ti al co m pl ai nt di d n ot pe rta in to “ a m at te r of pu bl ic co nc ern .” 10 H e ar gue s, how ev er , tha t this Co urt shoul d not re ad int o th e sta tut e som ethin g th at is 11 not the re , na m el y , a re qui re m en t tha t to qual if y fo r the pr ote ct ion s of the W PA , the 12 em ploy ee’ s at-issue com

m u n i cation m

ust pertain to a m atter of public concern. In 1 3 Pl ai n t i ff

’s v i ew , t h e “pl ai n m ea n i n g ” o f t h e t ex t o f t h e WPA re v ea l s t h e L eg i s l at u re ’s 14 in te nt to pe rm it a W PA cl ai m un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces of t hi s ca se . 15 { 19} T he iss ue w he the r Pl ai nti ff w as en tit le d to w his tle blo w er pr ote ct iona ri sin g ou t 16 of his law sui t co m

m uni catio n re ga rd ing D ef

en da nts ’ fa ilure to pa y him a cc or din g to 17 the term s of the original em ploy m ent contract is a m atter of f irst im pression in Ne w 18 Me xic o. “ Whe n N ewMe xic o c as es do n ot d ir ect ly a nsw er the que sti on p re se nte d, 19 we l o o k for guidance in analogou s law in other states or the f ederal sy stem .” CIT10

1 G rp. /E qui p. F in. , I nc . v . H ori zon P ota sh C

orp. , 199 4- N MC A -1 16, ¶ 6, 118 N
. M. 665 , 2 88 4 P .2d 82 1. Th e WPA was mo d e l e d aft er i ts fed eral co un te rp art . See 5 U. S. C. 3 § 23 02( b) (8 ) (2 013) ( pr ohi bit ed p e r s o n n e l p r a c t i c es ). A cc or din gly , c as es int er pr et ing 4 the f ed er al w his tle blo w er

law ha ve pe rs ua siv e va lue in co nsi de ri ng the le gis la tiv e 5 in te nt be hi nd th e WPA. See Truj illo v. N. Rio Arriba Ele c. Coop, Inc. , 2002-NMS C6 004, ¶ 8 , 1 31 N
. M
. 6 07 , 4 1 P
. 3d 3 33 ( r e c og ni z i ng t ha t , w he n N e w M e xi c o sta tutes 7 are sim ilar to their fe deral cou nterparts, appellate courts m ay rely on federal 8 juri sp ru de nc e in co ns tru in g l eg is la ti ve in te nt ). 9 { 20} L ike the W PA , the f ed er al w his tle blo w er

pr ote ct ionlaw doe s no t e xpl ic itl y 10 lim it w his tle blo w er

pr ote ct ion to c om

m uni ca tio ns tha t be ne fi t the pub lic or pe rt ai n 11 to m at te rs of

pub lic co nc er

n. N ev er

the le ss, a s D ef

en da nts de m onstra te in the ir 12 an sw er br ie f, fe de ra l co urts int er pr et ing the fe de ra l w his te blo w er pr ote ct ion law ha ve 13 dis tin gui she d “ w his tle blo w ing ” tha t be ne fits the pub lic by e xpos ing unl aw fu l and 1 4 i m p ro p erac t i o n s b y g o v er n m en templ o yees fr o m co m m u n ications regarding personal 15 pe rs on ne l g rie va nc es th atpri m ari ly ben efi t t he in di vi du al em pl oyee. Se e W

hit m ore 16 v. D ep ’t

of La bor , 680 F. 3d 1353, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012 ) (stating that t h e f ederal 17 w his tle blo w er

pr ote ct ionlaw “ m ak es c l e ar th at wh i s t l e b l o w ing pr ovi de s an im portant 18 publ ic be ne fi t” ); W

inf ie ld v

. D ep ’t of V

et er ans A ffa irs , 348 F
. App’ x. 577 , 580 ( Fe d. 1 9 Ci r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( p ercu ri am) ( “ Whi s t l eb l o we r p ro t ec t i o n d o es n o t ex t en d t o an empl o yee’s11

1 pe rs ona l gr ie va nc es about his j ob. ”) ; Riley v. De

p’t of Home land

Sec. , 315 F. App’ x. 2 267, 270 ( Fe d. Ci r. 200 9) ( sta tin g th at “ pe rs ona l di sa gr ee m en ts w ithle git im at e 3 m an ag er ia l de ci sio ns” do n ot d em onstrate abuse of auth or ity or “ an y oth er ki nd o f 4 ac tiv ity tha t co uld be co nsi de re d a w his tle blo win g d isclo sur e” ); W ill is v

. D ep ’t

of 5 Agric. , 141 F. 3d 11 39, 1143 (Fed. C ir. 1998 ) (stating that the federa l whistleblower 6 pr ote ct ion law s ar e “ de sig ne d to pr ote ct e m plo y ee s w ho r isk

the ir ow n pe rs ona l j ob 7 security

for the benefit of the publ ic”). Only the form er is protected by whistleblower 8 pr ot ect io n l aws . See M ont go mer y v. E

. Co rr. I

nst
. , 835 A
. 2d 1 69, 180 ( Md. 200 3) 9 (d iscu ssing the le gis la tiv e int en t of the f ed er al w his tle blo w er

pr ote ct ionlaw s and 10 sta tin g th at

the te rm “ w his tle blo w ing , ” w hich ge ne ral ly e voke s th e ty

pe of pub lic 11 dis cl osur e tha t “ se rv e[ s] t he pu bli c int er es t by a ssi sti ng i n th e el im ina tio n of f ra ud, 12 wa ste, a

buse, and u n n ecessary

governm ent expenditu res[, ] ” does not inclu de an 13 ind ivi dua l’ s c om

m uni c at i o n s r e g ar d i n g a

s u p e r v i s o r ’ s m a l tr e atm en t of

him pe rs ona lly 14 (em ph as is , in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s, an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 15 { 21} Pl ai nti ff

a rg ue s th at

the f or eg oin g auth or iti es a re not bin din g on thi s C ourt and 16 shou ld n ot b ear on o ur a na ly sis of

the W PA
. H ow ev er , as ide fr om c iti ng the ba re te xt 17 of the W PA , he pr ovi de s no au th or it yto supp ort the pr opos iti on tha t, by 18 com m unicating about his dispu te w ith Defe ndants o v er whether De fendants wer e 1 9 re q u i r e dt o p a y

h i m a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t e r

m s o f h i s e x p i r e de m

p l o ym e n tc o n t r a c t , he12

1 engaged in an activity that wa s protected by the W PA
. W e w ill therefore assum e that 2 no su ch au th or it y

ex is ts . Se e In re A dopt ion of D oe , 1984 -N MSC- 024, ¶ 2, 100 N. M. 3 764, 676 P
. 2d 1 329 (s ta tin g th at , if no a uth or ity is ci te d insup port of

apr opos iti on 4 the appe lla te c ourts w ill as sum e tha t no suc h au tho ri ty ex ist s)

. Furthe r, the obj ec t of 5 sta tut or

y int er pr et at ionis to c on st ru e its te rm s a cc or din g to the ir “ obvi ous spi ri t or 6 reason,” not to interpret it s term s in a way that would lead to an absurd or unin tended 7 res ul t. Sta te e

x re l. H el m an v . G all eg os , 199 4- N MS C- 023, ¶ 3, 117 N
. M. 346, 871 8 P. 2d 1 352 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). N oth ing in the langua ge 9 of the W PA , w hen read in its entirety and ag ai n s t t h e b ackdrop of the earlier 10 dis cu sse d f

ed er al au thori tie s, le ad s us to be lie ve tha t P la int if f’ s in iti al c om

pla int 11 co nst itu te d apr ote ct ed w his tle blo w ing ac tiv ity

. Si nc e the dis tr ic t c ourt r ea ch ed the 12 sa m e co nc lu si on , we affi rm it s o rd er d is m is si ng Pla in ti ff’s WPA clai m . 13 P lai nt if

f’ s C on tr ac t C lai m 14 { 22} T he dis tr ic t cour t dism iss ed Pl ai nti ff

’ s bre ac h of c ontra ct

c la im on the gr ound 15 tha t P la int if

f’ s e m plo ym en t co ntr ac t ex pir ed by it s ow n te rm s a ft er

tw o y ears a nd, in 16 the abse nc e of

ava lid w ri tte n e m

plo ym en t c ontra ct , P la int if f’ s c la im w as ba rr ed

by 17 NMS A 1 9 78, Sec tion 3 7-1-23(A) (1976). Pla intiff argues that he had an im plied 18 contract that s at i s fi ed Sec tion 3 7-1-23(A). T herefor e, Plaintiff argues, the district 19 co ur t er red in di sm is si ng hi s cl ai m .13

1 { 23} Section 37-1-23(A) pr ovid es t h at “ [g] overnm ental entities are granted 2 im m unityfrom

actions based on con tract, except actions based on a valid written 3 co ntr ac t. ” A cc or ding ly, “ a gove rn m en t[ ] e nti ty ’ s c ontra ct ua l l ia bil ity c anonl y be 4 based on a valid w ritten contract. ” G arc ia v

. M idd le R io G rand

e Co nse rv anc

y D ist

. , 5 19 96 -NMSC -0 29 , ¶ 8, 1 21 N.M. 72 8, 9 18 P.2d 7. 6 { 24} Inthe pr es en t c as e, the tw o- y ear em plo ym en t c ontra ct

be tw ee n P la int if

f an d 7 D e f e n d a n t s e x p i r e di n S e p t e mb e r 2 0 0 4
. P l a i n t i f

f a l l e g e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t , “[ t ]h e t e rms 8 of the or igi na l c ontract . . . [ were] c ont inu ed by the a ct s of

the pa rt ie s” a nd b y 9 D ef en da nts ’ su bs eque nt pa ym en t o f Pl ai nt iff’s sal ary in an am ou nt co ns is te nt wit h t he 10 te rm s of the or igi na l contra ct . Re ly ing on the pr inc ipl e tha t “ anim pli ed e m plo ym en t 11 co ntr ac t . . . m ay be fo und .

. . in the c ondu ct of the pa rt ie s, ” Pl ai nti ff

a rg ue s th at

the 12 continu ed acts of the parties under the c ircum stanc es o f t his case gave rise to an 13 im pl ie d c on tra ct . Id

. ¶ 10 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 14 { 25} E ven as sum ing tha t the pa rt ie s’ c ondu ct ga ve r ise to anim

pli ed e m plo ym en t 15 co ntr ac t, w ith out

ashowin g that

the te rm s of

the im pli ed c ontra ct w er e w ri tte n, 16 Se ct ion37- 1- 23( A ) ba rs P l a i n tif f’ s c la im

. P la int if

f’ s r el ianc e on G arc ia is m isp la ce d. 17 In G arc ia , the im

pli ed e m plo ym en t c ontra ct

tha t i nc lud ed written t e r

m s in a personnel 18 pol ic y c onst itu te d a“ va lid

w ri tte n” e m

plo ym en t c ontra ct

a s c ont em

pla te d inS ec tio n 19 37 -1 -2 3( A). G arc ia , 19 96 -NMSC -0 29 , ¶¶ 14

- 1 5 , 19
. G arc ia does not s uppo rt14

1 Pl ai nti ff

’ s arg um en t tha t an em

plo ym en t contra ct tha t is im pli ed onl y fr om

the a ct ion s 2 of th e pa rti es sat is fie s Se ct io n 3 7- 1- 23 (A). Rat he r, G arc ia stands fo r the pr opos iti on 3 tha t w he re a n e m

plo ym en t c ontra ct

m ay be im pli ed f ro m “ w ri tte n te rm s” it

m ay be 4 co nsi de re d a“ va lid writ te n co ntr ac t” f or the pur pose of sa tis fy ing S ec tio n 37 -1

- 5 23 (A). Se e G arc ia , 1996-NMS C-029, ¶¶ 10, 18 (rec ogni zi n g t h at althoug h an 6 im plied em ploy m ent contract m ay

be found from

wr itten representations, oral 7 re pr es en ta tio ns, f

ro m the pa rt ie s’ c ondu ct , or in a co m

bin at ionof

c ondu ct a nd 8 re pr es en ta tio ns, a n or al pr om ise is not a“ va lid w ri tte n c ontra ct” su chtha t i t c oul d 9 sa tis fy S ec tio n 37 -1 -2 3( A ))

. Bec au se Pl ai nti ff fa ile d to de m onst ra te the e xis te nc e of 10 a va lid

w ri tte n e m

plo ym en t c ontra ct , w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’s di sm iss al of his 1 1 c l a i m. 12 P lai nt if

f’ s D ue P ro ce ss C lai m 13 { 26} Inhis thi rd am en de d com pla int , Pl ai nti ff al le ge d th at D ef en da nts vio la te d hi s 14 due pr oc es s ri ght

of a cc es s to the c ourts b y

te rm ina tin g hi s e m

plo ym en t i n r et al ia tio n 15 fo r fi lin g hi s in iti al c om pla int

. P la int if

f co nc ed ed

tha t i nsof

ar a s hi s cl aim

f or 16 dam ages did no t fit within one of the enum erate d exceptions to gov ernm ental 17 imm un it y un de r th e TCA, h is cla im was b arre d. See V

aldez , 200 2- N MS C- 028, ¶ 12 18 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t “ ab se nt a w ai ve r of

im m uni ty und er the [ T CA ] , ape rs on m ay not 19 sue t h e s t at e for dam ages for violation of a state constitu tional right ” (internal15

1 quot at ion m ar

ks and ci ta tio n om itt ed ))

. Pl ai nti ff ar gue d, how ev er , tha t as a ppl ie d to 2 his cl ai m , the T CA w as unc onst itu tio na l in tha t i t vi ola te d hi s “ funda m en ta l r igh t” of 3 ac ce ss t o the co urts. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ej ec te d P la int if f’ s c onst itu tio na l a tta ck

on the 4 T CAa nd g rante d De fe ndants ’ m oti on for a j udgm en t on the ple ad ing s. O n a ppe al , 5 Pl ai nti ff

r e- as se rt s hi s a s- ap pli ed c hall en ge to the c onst itu tio na lity of the T CAon 6 eq ua l p ro te ct io n a nd du e p ro ces s g ro un ds

. 7 { 27} W e do not di scern any subst antive disti nction b etwe en Plaintiff’ s eq u al 8 protection and d ue pr ocess argum ents. I n his equal prot ection argum ent, P laintiff 9 ar gue s tha t the T CAvio la te s hi s f undam en ta l r igh t of

a cc es s to the c ourts b y

ba rr ing 10 his c la im

f or m onet ary

da m ag es a ga ins t D ef

en da nts . A nd i n hi s du e pr oc es s 11 ar gum en t, P la int if

f ar gue s th at

the T CAis unc on st it utiona l be ca use it a ct s a s a 12 “ com plete ban” upon h is fundam ental right of access to the courts to seek a m onetary 13 re m edy

in th is ca se . T hus, P la int if f’ s so le a rg um en t i s th at the T CAis 14 unc onst itu tio na l be ca use it doe s no t pe rm it him

to ex er ci se w ha t he asserts i s a 15 fu nd am en ta l ri gh t, t ha t i s, t he rig ht to su e Defen da nt s fo r m on et ary da m ag es . 16 { 28} Pl ai nti ff

’ s c onst itu tio na l a tta ck

on the T CAis una va ili ng be ca use it im pr ope rl y 17 co nf la te s th e co nst itu tio na lly guarante ed ri ght of ac ce ss to the c ourts w iththe not ion 18 of entitlem ent to recover m onetary dam ages. The r ight o f ac cess to the courts is an 19 im pli c i tg uar a nt e e d e r i ve d f r om A rt i c l e I I , S e c t i on1 8 of t he N e w M e xi co16

1 Co ns ti tu ti on . Se e Tr uji llo v . Ci tyof A lbu que rque , 199 8-NMS C-031, ¶ 20, 125 N. M. 2 721, 965 P
. 2d 3 05 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t the c onst itu tio na l pr ovi sio n th at “ [n ] o pe rs on 3 sha ll be de pr ive d of lif e, lib er ty [, ] or pr ope rty w ith out

due pr oc es s of

law ; no r sha ll 4 an y pe rs on b e de nie d equa l pr ote ct ion of the law s” c ont ai ns an im pli ci t r igh t of

a cc es s 5 to the c ourts ( int er

na l quot at ion m ar

ks an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ))

. H ow ev er , the r igh t of 6 “ ac ce s s t o t h e c o u rt s d o es n o t cr ea t e a ri g h t t o u n l i m i t ed g o v er n m en t al t o rt l i ab i l i t y[,]” 7 an d it do es no t gu aran te e th e ex is te nc e o f a rem ed y . Id

. ¶¶ 20-21. Thus, “ the fact that 8 a plaintiff is denied an adequate rem edy when suing the state d oes not con stitut e a 9 violatio n of one’ s right to cou rt acc ess.” Id

. ¶ 2 1. 10 { 29} Pl ai nti ff

’ s c onst itu tio na l arg um en t is al so u npe rs ua siv e be ca use it is ba se d on 11 the er ro ne ous as sum

pti on tha t he ha d a funda m en ta l ri ght to sue D ef en da nts f or 12 dam ages. The r ight to sue the governm ent for tort dam ages i s n o t a fundam ental 13 rig ht ; i t i s a s ta tu to ry rig ht

. See M

arru jo v. State H

ighway Trans

p. D ep’t , 1994- 1 4 N MS C- 116, ¶

¶ 1 8 , 2 4 , 1 1 8 N
. M
. 7 5 3 , 8 8 7 P
. 2 d7 4 7 ( s t a t i n g t h a tt h e r e i s no 15 funda m en ta l ri ght to s ue the gov er nm en t f or tor t dam ag es ; r athe r, “ [t ] he r igh t t o su e 16 the governm ent is a statutory right”). As such, the Le gislature m ay rea sonablyrestrict 17 t h a t rig ht , as i t h as do ne in th e TCA. Se e id. ¶ 24 ( st a t i ng t ha t t he L e gi sl a tur e m ay 18 re as ona

bly r es tr ic t the r igh t t o su e the gov ern m en t for tor t dam ag es ); Garcia v. 19 Albuquerqu e Pub. S

ch. Bd. of Educ. , 198 0- N MC A -0 81, ¶ 9, 95 N
. M. 391 , 622 P
. 2d17

1 699 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t c re atin g exce pti ons to s ove re ignim m uni ty via the T CAis a 2 fu nc ti on of t he Legi sl at ur e, no t o f th e co ur ts ). 3 { 30} Insum , Pl ai nti ff ha s fa ile d to d em onstra te tha t the abse nc e of aT CAe xc ep tio n 4 tha t w oul d pe rm it him to se ek m one tary

da m ag es f

ro m D ef en da nts und er the 5 circum stances of this case re nders t h e TC A u n constitu tional. N or has Plaintiff 6 de m onstra te d an y le ga l ba sis upon w hic h he w as en tit le d to se ek da m ag es f or 7 D e f e n d a n t s ’ a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t o f a c c e s s t o t h e c our ts. 8 Ac cordingly , w e af

firm the district court’ s order granting D efendants’ m otion for a 9 jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs . 10 CON CLU SION 11 { 31} We a f

f i rm. 12 { 32} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

13

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 14 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e18

1 WE CO NCUR:
2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e
4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 C Y N TH IA A . F R

Y , Ju dg e