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

2 Op in ion N um be r:

____ ____ ____ __ 3 F ili ng D at e: N ove m be r 19, 201 5 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 4, 546 5 NEW MEX ICO D EP AR TME NT OF 6 WO RKFORCE SO LUTI ONS, 7 Pe tit ion er -Appe llant , 8 an d 9 ALB ERT SON S, 10 Em

ploy er, 11 v. 12 NA NC Y G AR

DU ÑO, 13 Respondent -Appellee.
14 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 15 R aym on d Z . Or ti z, D ist ri ctJu dg e
16 N ewMe xic o D ep ar

tm en t of W orkf or ce S olu tio ns 17 Marshall J. Ray 18 E liz ab eth A

. G ar ci a 19 Richard L aw rence Branch 20 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 21 fo r Pe tit ion er -Appe llant1 Ro de y

Dick as on Slo an Aki n & Ro bb P.A. 2 Jeffr ey L. Low ry 3 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 4 for E m ploy er
5 Ne w Me xico Legal A id, Inc. 6 Alicia Clark 7 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 8 T im oth y

R. H as son 9 Tao s, NM 10 fo r Re spon de nt1 OPIN ION

2 MA ES, Justice. 3 { 1} Following a determ ination th at Resp ondent Nancy Garduño (Gar duño ) w as 4 ine lig ibl e fo r un em

pl oym en t be ne fi ts b ec au se he r em plo y er te rm inate d he r fo r 5 m iscondu ct connected with her e m ploym ent, the Ca

binet Se cr et ar y of the Ne w 6 Me xic o D ep ar

tm en t of W orkf or ce So lu tions ( the D ep ar tm en t) or de re d G ar duño to 7 re p a y $ 1 1 , 2 5 6 i n o v e r

p a i du n e m

p l o ym e n tb e n e f

i t s . T h e C o u rto f

Ap p e a l s m a

j or ity 8 he ld tha t du e pr oc es s pr ec lud ed the D ep ar

tm en t f ro m c oll ec tin g th e ove rp ai d 9 une m plo ym en t be ne fi ts fr om G ar duño w he re she re ce ive d be ne fi ts p ay m en ts d ur ing 10 the ong oin g a

ppe al s pr oc es s be ca

use she w as unaw ar e of

he r em plo y er ’ s a ppe al f or 11 13 0 d ay s. See N. M

. D ep ’t o f W ork for ce Sol uti ons v. G ardu ño , 201 4- N MC A -0 50, ¶ 25, 12 32 4 P .3d37 7 (Ha ni se e, J., c o n c u r r i n g i n p artan d d is se nt in g i n p art ), cert. gran ted 1 3 2 0 1 4 -N M CE RT -0 0 3
. We re v er s e t h e C o u rt o f A p p ea l s an dh o l dt h at Ga rd u ñ o ’s 14 procedural due process rights were not vio lated because the D epartm ent provided 15 G ar duño w ithc onst itu tio na lly a de qua te pr oc ed

ur al pr ote ct ion s pr ior

to te rm inatin g 16 he r be ne fi ts and or de ri ng her to re im bur se the D ep ar

tm en t f or the ove rp ai d be ne fi ts. 17 I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HIST ORY 18 { 2} O n F e b r

u a ry 5 , 2 0 1 0 , A l b e rt s o n s , a

g r o c e ry s t o r e c h a i n , t e rm i n a t e dG ar duño 19 from her j ob as a front-end cler k for violation of the associate-purchase policy , which2

1 prohibi ted givin g away “ fre e m er chandise of any kind.” T his inclu ded givi ng deep 2 di sc ou nt s, a p ract ic e cal le d “ swe et he art in g.” Surv ei llanc e cam er as r ec or de d G ar duño 3 charging a coworker

and his wife $2.82 for m erc h an dise that sho uld have tot aled 4 ap pr oxi m at ely

$17

. 00. A n in ve sti ga tio n c ondu ct ed by A lbe rt sons ’ m an ag em en t 5 re ve al ed that an inc ide nt tha t occ ur re d on January

14, 201 0, w as not

a n is olate d on e 6 an d th at

G ar duño ga ve a t l ea st o ne oth er e m plo y ee a n un au tho ri ze d di sc ount . 7 { 3} G ar duño f

ile d f or une m plo ym en t i nsur an ce be ne fi ts on F eb ru ar y 14, 201 0. T he 8 D ep ar tm en t’ s c la im s e xa m ine r iss ue d anot ic e of c la im de te rm ination aw ar din g 9 G ar duño $402 in w ee kly be ne fi ts. The notice stated that the determ ination wa s final 10 “ un le ss an ap pe al is fil edwit hi n fi fte e n c al en da r da y s fr om : 0 3/ 12 /2 01 0.” 11 A ddi tio na lly , the n ot ic e state d, “ If y our e m plo y er c ha lle nge s ade ci sio n a llo w ing 12 benefits to y ou and th e appeal decision is against y ou, y ou w ill be required to repay 13 those b en ef

its.” See 11. 3. 300. 308 N MA C ( 1/1 /03 ) O n M ar ch26, 201 0, A lbe rt sons 14 ap pe al ed

the c la im de te rm inatio n. T he D ep ar tm en t c o n t i nu e d

t o p ay G ar duño be ne fi ts 15 dur ing the ong oin g a

ppe al s pr oc es s. 16 { 4} T he D ep ar

tm en t di d no t not if

y G ar duño of the A lbe rt sons ap pe al unt il A ugus t 17 3, 201 0, w he n th e D ep ar tm en t m ai le d Ga rd

uño a not ic e of

he ar ing

. T he not ic e of 18 hearing stated that “ the appeal hearing” in front of t he De partm ent’ s appeals tribunal3

1 w as sc he dul ed

f or A ugus t 19 , 201 0, a nd l ist ed the le ga l iss ue s to be a ddr es se d. Af ter 2 re ce ivi ng the not ic e of

he ar ing , G ar duño co nti nue d fil ing w ee kly cl ai m s for be ne fi ts, 3 co lle ct ing a n ad dit ion al $2, 010 in une m plo ym en t be ne fi ts. A t the appe al he ar ing on 4 A ugus t 19 , 201 0, a n a dm ini str at ive lawjud ge ( A L J) be gan he ar ing te sti m ony but 5 ult im at el y

e le ct ed to co nti nue the he ar ing to giv e G ar duño the c hanc e to r es ubm it 6 doc um en ts and r eque st s ubpo en as . O n Augus t 2 3, 2010, the D ep ar tm en t i ssu ed

a 7 not ic e statin g th at

the he ar ing w oul d re sum e on Se pte m be r 9, 201 0. O n th at

day , the 8 ALJ h ea rd t es t i m o n y fr o m Ga rd u ñ o , t h e s t o re m an ag er , an empl o yee, an dt h e s t o re ’s 9 loss p revent i on inv estigator, and considered evidence consistin g of wr itten 10 state m en ts, pol ic ie s, re ceipts, a nd s urve ill an ce vid eo . O n S ep te m be r 14, 201 0, the 11 AL J i ss ue d a de c i si on di squa l i f y i ng G a r duño f

r om be ne f

i t s e l i gi bi l i t y du e t o her 12 em plo y ee m isc ondu ct . That sam e day , the De partm ent issued an ov erpay m ent notice 13 inform ing Garduño of her disqualification from benefits because she had “ claim ed 14 and received benefits to which [she wa s] not entitled,” and she w as theref ore re quired 15 to r ef und the ove rp ay

m en t, tot al ing $11 , 256. 16 { 5} G ar duño ap pe al ed the A L J’ s dec isi on. T he board of r ev ie w , whic h pr ovi de s a 1 7 s ec o n d -t i erad m i n i s t ra t i v e r ev i ew o f D ep ar t m en td ec i s i o n s , a ff i rmedGa rd u ñ o ’s 18 dis qua lif

ic at ion on No ve m

be r 23, 201 0. Ga rd u ñ o d i dn o ts ee kre v i ew o f t h e b o ar d ’s4

1 de ci sio n. H ow ev er , she did appe al to the appe al s tr ibuna l the D ep ar tm en t’ s de ci sio n 2 to r ec oup the $11 , 256 ove rpay m en t. T he tr ibuna l he ld a he ar ing on D ec em

be r 29, 3 2010 , on the iss ue of

the ove rp ay

m en t an d is sue d ade ci sio n th e ne xt d ay a ff irm ing 4 the Dep artm en t’ s de ci sio n to r ec oup the ove rp ay m en ts. O n January

13, 201 1, 5 G a r du ñ o ap p e a l e dt h e t r i b u n a l ’s d e c i s i o n t o t h e De p a rt men t ’s c ab i n e ts e c r e t a ry. 6 Ci tin g N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 51 -1 -3 8 (1993) , the c ab ine t se cr et ar y a ff irm ed the 7 de ci sio n o f

t h e t r i b u n a l o n J a n u a ry 2 8 , 2 0 1 1 , a n do r d e r e dG a r du ñ o t o r e p a y the 8 D ep ar tm en t f or the ove rp ai d be ne fi ts. 9 { 6} Having exhausted her adm inistrative rem edies, Garduño appealed the cabinet 10 se cr eta ry ’ s de ci sio n to state dis tr ic t c ourt. G ar duño a sse rt ed that the D ep ar

tm en t 11 shou ld b e equit ab ly

e sto ppe d fr om pur sui ng col le ct ion of ove rp ay m en ts b ec au se the 12 D ep ar tm en t f ai le d to c om

ply w ithf ed er al ti m el ine ss s tandard s f or p r o c e s s i n g appe al s. 13 G ar duño a lso a rg ue d th at the D ep ar

tm en t vi olate d he r ri ght

to not ic e an d he ar ing 14 unde r the D ue P ro ce ss C lause of the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. I n an or de r re ve rs ing 1 5 t h e c ab i n et s ec re t ary’ s d ec i s i o n , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt h el d t h at (1 ) t h e ap p ea l s t ri b u n al ’s 16 he ar ing , c ondu ct ed

six m onths af

te r G ar duño start ed

r ec ei vin g be ne fi ts, vio la te d th e 17 tim el ine ss r equir em en ts f or pr oc es sin g a

ppe al c la im s un de r state an d fe de ra l l aw ; ( 2) 18 the doc tr ine of

e q u i t a b le e sto ppe l barr ed

the D ep ar tm en t f ro m c la im ing a nd c oll ec tin g5

1 an overpaym ent from

Garduño; and (3) the overpay m ent claim s process violated 2 G ar duño ’ s du e pr oc es s r igh ts b y f ai ling to pr ovi de G ar duño w ithti m el y not ic e an d 3 he ar ing

. T he D ep ar

tm en t a ppe al ed the dis tr ic t cour

t’ s orde r to the Co urt of

Appe al s. 4 { 7} At the ti m e o f

t he D e part m e nt ’ s app e a l , t he C ourto f App e a l s ha d a no t her 5 pe nd in g c as e wit h s im il ar fa ct s. See M ill ar v . N. M

. D ep ’t of W ork for ce Sol uti ons , 6 2013 -N MC A -0 55, 304 P
. 3d 4 27. D es pit e the D e p ar tm en t’ s m oti on t o c onso lid at e thi s 7 ca se wit h M

illar , th e Co ur t o f App eal s d eci de d t he m sep arat el y . Se e G ardu ño , 8 2014 -N MCA -050, ¶ 28 n.1 ( Hanisee, J. , c oncurring in p art and dissentin g in part). In 9 M illar , the C ourt of Appeals re j ected the claim ant’ s equitable estop pel and federa l 10 tim el ine ss r eg ulatio n arg um en ts, ho ld in g that the c la im an t di d no t have “ a ri ght to 11 unempl oy m en t c om

pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts t o w hic h he w as not e nti tle d and whic h [ the 12 D ep ar tm en t] ha s astatut or y obl igatio n to r ec ove r. ” 2013 -N MC A -0 55, ¶ ¶ 16, 23. 13 Pr oc ed

ur al due pr oc es s w as not

a t i ssu e in M

illar . Se e id. ¶ 1. 14 { 8} Af

ter the M illar opi nio n wa s f

ile d, am aj or ity

of adif fe re nt C ourt of

Appe al s 15 panel he l d t hatG a r duño ’ s f e de r a l a nd

s t a t e t i m e l i ne ss a nd

e qu i t abl e e st op pel 16 ar gum en ts l ac ke d m er it fo r the sam e re as ons se t f orth i n M illar . Se e G ardu ño , 201 4- 17 N MC A -0 50, ¶

13. T he m aj or ity

c onc lud ed , how ev er , that the D ep ar tm en t’ s fa ilure to 18 pr ovi de G ar duño w ithti m el y not ic e of the e m plo y er ’ s a ppe al f ro m the not ic e of

c la im6

1 de te rm inatio n aw ar din g G ar duño be n e f i t s v i o l at e d

he r ri ght to pr oc ed ur al due pr oc es s 2 so as to pr ecl ud e th e Dep art m en t from co ll ect in g t he ov erp ai d b en efi ts . Id

. ¶¶ 21, 26. 3 Judg e H anisee did “ not agree that Garduño’s due process rights w ere violated, even 4 assum i ng s he h a [ d] al e gi t i m a t e p r op e rt y i nt e r e st , ” b e c aus e t he “ pr oc e e di ng wa s 5 conducted ‘in a rea s o n ab le tim e and m anner. ’ ” Id

. ¶ 34 ( H an ise e, J. , c onc ur ri ng i n 6 part a nd di ss e nt i ng i n part )

. T he D e part m e nt app e a l e d t o t hi s C ourt . W e granted 7 ce rt ior ar i t o c onsi de r w he the r the Co urt of Appe al s e rr ed

by ( 1) hol din g th at

G ar duño 8 ha d ac onst itu tio na lly

pr ote ct ed

pr ope rty int er es t i n un em

plo ym en t be ne fi ts s he 9 re ce i v ed b ef

o re b ei n g fo u n d i n el i g i b l e fo r s u ch b en ef i t s , (2 ) h o l d i n g t h at Ga rd u ñ o ’s 10 pr oc ed

ural due pr oc es s r igh ts w er e vio la te d, a nd ( 3) pr ovi din g G ar duño w itha 11 re m edy

c ontrary to la w an d th e publ ic int er es t i n pr es er vin g th e une m

plo ym en t f

und. 12 II. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W 13 { 9} G e n e r a l l y, w e r e v i e w“ a n a d mi n i s t r a t i v e o r d e r t o d e t e rmi n e i f

i ti s a r b i t r a ry, 14 ca pr ic iou s, or

a n a buse of dis cr et ion ; no t su

ppor te d b ysub stanti al e vid en ce in the 15 reco rd ; o r, ot he rw i s e n ot in acco rd an ce wi th law.” N. M

. A tt’ y G en . v . N. M

. P ub. 16 Re gula tion Comm’ n , 201 3- N MS C- 042, ¶ 9, 30 9 P
. 3d 8 9 ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks 17 an d c itatio ns o m itt ed ). Be ca use G ar duño did not ap pe al the D ep ar tm en t’ s e lig ibi lity 18 d et er m ination , the only issue on app eal is the constitut ionalityof the D epartm en t ’s7

1 pr oc ed ur es le ad ing to the ad m inistr at ive or de r. T he c onst itu tio na lity of the 2 De partm ent’ s procedures presents this Court with a question of law, which we review 3 de nov o. Se e A lbu que rque B ernal illo Cty
. W ate r U til

. A uth

. v . N. M

. P ub. R egula tio n 4 Comm ’n , 20 10 -NMSC -0 13 , ¶ 19 , 14 8 N.M. 2 1, 2 29 P.3d 49 4 (c it at io ns om it te d)

. 5 III. DISC US SION 6 { 10} T he D ue P ro ce ss C lause s of the U nit ed

S ta te s and N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio ns 7 re qui re the gove rn m en t t o a ff or d c er ta in p ro ce dur al pr ote ct ion s pr ior to de pr ivi ng any 8 pe rs on of a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edin te res t i n l ife , li be rty, or p ro p e rty. See U. S. 9 Co nst . am en d

. X I V , § 1 ( “N o S t a t e s h a l l

. . . d e p r i v e a n y p e r s o n o f

l i f e , l i b e rt y , or 10 pr ope rty , w ith out

due pr oc es s of law . ”) ; N
. M. Co nst . ar t. I I, § 18 ( “N o pe rs on s ha ll 1 1 b e d e p r i v e do f

l i f e , l i b e rt y o r

p r o p e rt y wi t h o u tdu e p r o c e s s o f l a w . ” )

. Ac c o r d i n g l y, 12 “ [a ] dm ini str at ive he ar ing s th at a ff ec t a pr ope rty or lib er ty int er es t m

ust c om ply w ith 13 due process.” Arch ul et a v . Sa nt a Fe Po li ce Dep ’t e x re l. Ci ty of

Sa nt a Fe , 14 2005 -N MS C- 006, ¶

31, 137 N
. M. 161 , 108 P
. 3d 1 019. 15 { 11} In New Mexico state courts, “ [t] he Mathews test is the appropriate analytical 16 fram ew ork for a due process issue.” A rc hul eta , 200 5- N MS C- 006, ¶ 31 ( ci ta tio n 17 om itted). T he Mathews te st e va luate s th e fo llo w ing f ac tor s: ( 1) “ the pr ivate int er es t 18 that w ill be af

fe ct ed by the of

fi ci al ac tio n;” ( 2) “ the r isk of e rr one ous de pr ivatio n of8

1 suc h in te re st thr oughthe pr oc ed ur es use d, a nd the pr oba ble va lue , if

a ny , of 2 ad dit ion al or

sub sti tut e pr oc ed

ur al sa fe guard s;” a nd ( 3) “ the G ove rn m en t’ s in te re st, 3 inc lud ing the f

unc tio n in vol ve d and the f iscal and a dm ini str at ive bur de ns tha t the 4 additio nal or substi tute procedural requirem ent would entail.” M ath ew s v . E ldr idg e , 5 42 4 U.S. 3 19 , 33 4- 35 , 96 S.Ct . 89 3, 4 7 L.Ed .2d18 (19 76 ). 6 A . N ew M exic o’ s U ne m pl oym en t C om pe ns at ion La w c re at es a 7 constitut ionally protected prope rty int erest in un em ploym ent bene fits 8 { 12} The first factor of the Mathews te st r equir es c onsi de ri ng the pr ivate pr ope rty 9 in t e r es t af

fect edby stat e act io n. See M athews , 424 U
. S. a t 33 5, 340 -4 3. 10 “ [C ] onsi de ratio n of w ha t pr oc ed ur es due pr oc es s m ay re qui re unde r an y giv en se t of 11 ci rc um stanc es m

ust be gin w ith a det er

m inatio n of the pr ec ise na tur e of
. . . the pr ivate 12 interest that has been affe cted by governm ental action.” Ca fe te ria & R es t. W

ork er s 13 Uni o n , Lo ca l 473 v. M cE lroy, 367 U
. S. 886 , 895 , 81 S
. Ct
. 174 3, 6 L
. E d. 2d 1 230 1 4 (1 96 1 )

. T h e D e p a rt m e n t a r g u e s t h a t G a r du ñ o d o e s n o t h a v e a p r o p e rt y i n t e r e st i n 15 ove rp ai d be ne fi ts b ec au se she f ai le d to appe al the que sti on o f he r el igi bil ity

. T he 16 D ep ar tm en t ag re es that an ind ivi dua l c anhave ac onst itu tio na lly pr ote ct ed

pr ope rty 17 interest in unem

ploym ent benefits that are im properly denied, but here, Garduño was 18 de em ed

ine lig ibl e fo r the be ne fi ts and h as ne ve r ch al le nge d th at de te rm in at io n.9

1 G ar duño c ont en ds tha t the int er es t of a n in dividual in co nti nue d r ec ei pt o f 2 gove rn m en ta lly

c re at ed be ne fi ts i s ac onst itu tio na lly pr otected “ pr ope rty ” int er es t. 3 G ar du ñ o a r g u e s t h a t , o n c e t h e D e p a rt m e n t i s s u e d a n o t i c e f i n d i n g h e r e l i g i ble f

or 4 un em pl oym en t b en efi ts , sh e h ada pr ot ect edpro pe rty rig ht in th e th os e b en efi ts . We 5 hol d t h a t G a r du ñ o a c qu i r e d a c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d p r o p e rt y i n t e re st i n 6 u n emp l o ym en tb en ef

i t s wh en s h e b eg an re ce i v i n g p aym en t s an dt h at Ga rd u ñ o ’s 7 ret en ti on of t ho se be ne fit s ca nn ot be ter m in at edwit ho ut du e p ro ces s. 8 { 13} Property

interest in a benefit w as defined by the United State s Suprem e Court 9 in B oard

of R eg en ts o

f State Co lle

ges v . R oth : 10 To have a p roperty interest in a b enefit, a person clear ly m ust have m ore 11 than an a

bstra ct ne ed or de sir e fo r it. H e m

us t ha ve m or e than a 12 uni la te ra l e xpe ct at ionof it

. H e m ust , ins te ad , ha ve ale git im at e cl ai m of 13 en tit le m en t t o it

. It is a pur pose of the a nc ie nt i nst itu tio n of pr ope rty to 14 protect those claim s upon which people rely in their d aily lives, re liance 15 th atm

us t n ot be arb it rari ly und erm in ed

. 16 408 U.S . 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L .E d.2d 548 (197 2). P roperty interests “ are 17 created and their dim ensions are defined by existing rules or understanding s that stem 18 from an ind ep en d en t source such as state law –rules or understandi ngs th at secure 19 certa in benefits and that su pport claim s of entitlem ent to tho se benefits.” Id

. 20 { 14} A statut or

y sc he m e pr ovi din g f

or the r ec ei pt of

gov er nm en t be ne fi ts m ay

giv e10

1 ri se to pr ope rty int er es ts pr ote ct ed by the due pr oc es s c lause . I n Mathews , the United 2 States Suprem e Cou rt d eterm ined that the private interest aff ected by state action wa s 3 the cl ai m an t’ s cont inu ed re ce ipt of be ne fi ts, w hic h w as asourc e of inc om e, pe ndi ng 4 a fi na l d eci si on on hi s cl ai m forSo ci al Secu r i t y d i s a b i li ty ben efi ts . See 424 U.S . at 5 339-40 . S im ilarly , a private interest affe cted by state action is a claim ant’ s continu ed 6 rece ip t o f wel fare be ne fit s. See G oldb erg v. Kelly, 397 U
. S. 254 , 267 , 90 S
. Ct 101 1, 7 25 L. E d. 2d 287 (hol din g that “ the pr e- te rm inatio n heari ng has one f unc tio n on ly ; t o 8 pr oduc e anini tia l de te rm inatio n of the va lid ity

of the w el fare de partm en t’ s gr ound s 9 fo r di sc ontinuanc e of

paym en ts i n or de r to p ro te ct ar ec ipi en t a ga ins t an e rr one ous 10 te rm inatio n of

his be ne fi ts. ” (c itatio ns o m itt ed )) ; R oth , 408 U .S
. a t 57 6 ( “ a pe rs on 11 re ce ivi ng w el fare be ne fi ts unde r statut or y a nd adm ini str at ive standard s de fi nin g 1 2 el i g i b i l i t y f

o r t h e m h a s a n i n t e r e s t i n c o n t i n u e d r e c e i p t o f t h o s e b e n e f i t s t ha t i s 13 sa fe guard ed

by pr oc ed ural due pr oc es s. ” (c itatio ns o m itt ed )) ; se e als o W ilkinson v. 14 Abr ams , 627 F
. 2d 6 50, 664 ( 3d C ir

. 1980 ) (“ St at e sta tut es pr ovi din g for the paym en t 15 of une m plo ym en t c om

pe ns ationbe ne fi ts c re at e in the c la im an ts f or tho se be ne fi ts 16 property

interests protected by

due process.” (citation om itted)). 17 { 15} Ne w Me xico’ s Unem ploym ent Com

pensation Law articulates the great 18 im po rta nc e o f th is so ur ce o f in co m e to un em pl oyed cl ai mant s. See N MS A 197 8,11

1 Section 51-1-3 (1936 ) (“ [T he purpose of the statute is to ] light en [the] burden which 2 nowso o ft enf

al ls w ithc ru shi ng f

or ce upo n the une m

plo y ed w orke r an d [ the 3 w or ke r’ s] f am il y .”). Lack in g i nd ep en de nt res ou rces , a cl ai m ant’ s “ne ed to co nc entr at e 4 upon finding th e m eans for daily subs istence . . . adv ersely affe cts his abilit y to seek 5 red res s fro m

th e [s ta te ’s] bu reau crac y .” G old be rg , 397 U
. S. a t 26 4. U ne m plo ym en t 6 be ne fi ts ar e sig nif

ic an t to the re ce ntl y une m plo y ed w orke r be ca

use the y “ giv e pr om

pt 7 if onl y part ia l r ep la ce m en t of wag es to th e une m plo y ed , to en ab le w orke rs to tid e 8 the m se lve s ov er , unt il th ey ge t ba ck to the ir old w ork or f ind oth er e m plo ym en t, 9 without havin g to r esort to relief. ” Cal. D ep’t of Hum an Res. De v. v. Java , 402 U. S. 10 121, 131 , 91 S
. Ct
. 1347 , 28 L
. E d. 2d 666 (1 970) ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks, c itatio n, 11 and footno te om itted) (discuss i n g the legislative pu rpose behind the Feder al 12 une m plo ym en t i nsur an ce sc he m e)

. Furthe r, “ [u ] ne m plo ym en t be ne fi ts p ro vid e ca sh 1 3 to a n e w l y u n e m

p l o y e d w o rk e r a t a t i m e w h e n o t h e rw i s e h e w o u l d h a v e n o t h i n g to 14 spend, s er v i n g t o m aintain the recipient at subsis tence levels .

. . . ” Id

. a t 13 1- 32 15 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks, c itatio n and f

ootnot e om itt ed ). T he se curi ty pr ovi de d by 16 une m plo ym en t be ne fi ts d

ur ing aper iod

of une m plo ym en t i s a lso im

portant i n 17 “ assistin g a worker to f ind substantially equivalent em ploym ent . . . [because] [t] hey 18 shou ld not be doin g anything else b ut look ing for a j ob.” Id

. at 132 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n12

1 m ark s o m it te d)

. 2 { 16} Be ca

use N ewMe xic o’ s un em

plo ym en t co m

pe nsa tio n sc he m e pr ovi de s f or the 3 pa ym en t of un em

pl oym en t co m

pe ns at io n b en efi ts , see generally N MS A 1978 , §§ 5 1- 4 1-1 to -59 (193 6, as am ended thr ough 2013 ); 11.3.300 NM AC (07/15/ 1998 , a s 5 am en de d th ro ugh 07/ 31/ 2013 ) (s pe ci fy ing the a dm ini str at ionof une m plo ym en t 6 be ne fi ts c la im s) , c la im an ts f or suc h be ne fi ts p oss es s apr ope rty int er es t pr ote ct ed

by 7 du e p ro ces s. See W

ilk ins on , 627 F
. 2d a t 66 4 ( “ St at e statut es pr ovi din g fo r the 8 paym en t of

une m plo ym en t c om

pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts c re at e in the c la im ants for tho se 9 benefits property interests protected by due process.” (citation om itted)); R oth , 408 10 U
. S. a t 57 6 ( “ T he F ourte en th A m en dm en t’ s pr oc ed ur al pr ote ct ion of pr op er ty is a 11 sa fe guard

of the se curi ty

of int er ests that a

pe rs on h as a lr ea dy

a cquir ed in spe ci fi c 12 benefits.”)

. 13 { 17} T he Co urt of

Appe al s m aj or ity co nc lud ed that “ G ar duño ha s apr ope rty r igh t 14 in r ec ei vin g un em

plo ym en t be ne fi ts b y

vir tue of the U ne m

plo ym en t C om

pe nsa tio n 15 Law. ” Gar duño , 2014 -N MCA -050, ¶ 17 (c itations om itted). Judge Hanisee disagreed 16 that G ar duño ha d ale git im at e prop er ty int er es t be ca

use she “ ab an don[ ed ] a ny 17 ch al le nge to the T ri buna l’ s de te rm ination tha t sh e w as sub stanti ve ly ine lig ibl e fo r 18 unem ploym ent benefits.” Id

. ¶ 31 (H anisee, J., d i s s en ting in part). Judge Hanisee13

1 w ro te that, “ G ar duño ’ s de sir e to k ee p—and n ot rep ay to [the D ep ar

tm en t] —the 2 overpaid benefits does n ot giv e rise to a ‘legitim ate claim of en titlem ent.’ Rather, her 3 i n t e r e s ti s o f

t h e t yp e d i s a l l o w e db y R oth : that for w hich a claim ant has an ‘ abstract 4 need or desire’ or a ‘ unilateral expectation.’ ” Id

. (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

. 5 { 18} The c haracte rization of Garduño’s cla im m akes little differ ence w hen 6 de te rm ini ng the e xis te nc e of a pr ot ect ed

pr ope rty int er es t. Whe the r G ar duño is 7 se ek ing to ke ep he r be ne fi ts— be nefi ts she w as ini tia lly f ound e lig ibl e fo r— or 8 wh et h ers h e i s s ee k i n g co n t i n u ed re ce i p to f t h o s e b en ef i t s i s i r re l ev an t . Ga rd u ñ o ’s 9 c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e dp r o p e rt y i n t e r e s ti n t h e b e n e f i t s a r o s e w h e n t h e c l a i ms 10 ex am ine r m ad e the ini tia l e lig ibi lity de te rm inatio n and s he be gan r ec ei vin g be ne fi t 11 paym ents. O nce this property interes t ar os e , p r oc e du

r al due process protections began 12 pr ote ct ing the se curi ty of that inte re st, a nd the D ep ar tm en t c oul d ne ith er

dis co nti nue 13 paym en ts n or

r ec oup earl ie r paym en ts ba se d on a dis qua lif ic at ion an d te rm inatio n of 1 4 b e n e f i t s w i t h o u t a f

f o r d i n g G a r du ñ o du e p r o c e s s . I n d e e d , t h e U n i t e dS t a t e s S up r e me 15 Co urt ha s he ld tha t “ [r ] el ev an t c onst itu tio na l r es tr ai nts appl y a s m uc h to the 16 w ith dr aw al of

pub lic a ssi stanc e be ne fi ts a s to dis qua lificat ionf or une m plo ym en t 17 com pensation .” G old

be rg , 397 U
. S. a t 26 2 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ); se e als o W ilk ins on , 18 627 F. 2d a t 66 4–65 n. 18 ( “ O ur c onc lus ionth at cl ai m an ts f or state une m

plo ym en t14

1 co m pe nsa tio n be ne fi ts h av e a pr ote ct ed pr ope rt y int er es t a ppl ie s no le ss t o c la im an ts, 2 lik e the W ilk ins on c la ss, se ek ing to est ab lis h eli gib ili ty in the fi rs t inst an ce , than to 3 cl ai m an ts . . . se ek in g t o e st ab li sh co nt in ue d e li gi bi li ty.” (cit at io n o m it te d) ). 4 { 19} W e af

fi rm the Co urt of Appe al s’ hol din g th at “ G ar duño ha s apr ope rty

r igh t i n 5 re ce ivi ng une m

plo ym en t be ne fi ts b y

vir tue of the U nem

plo ym en t C om

pe nsa tio n 6 Law. ” G ardu ño , 201 4-NMC A- 050, ¶ 1 7 (citations om itted). Judge Hanisee is correc t 7 that G ar duño did

not c ha lle nge the subs tanti ve de te rm inatio n that she w as ine lig ibl e 8 fo r be ne fi ts. Bu t tha t a lon e doe s no t gi ve the D ep ar tm en t auth or ity

to te rm inate a nd 9 re co up h er

une m plo ym en t be ne fi ts w ith out a ff or din g G ar duño due pr oc es s. T he ne xt 10 ste p inour

pr oc ed ur al due pr oc es s an al y sis is t o de te rm ine w he the r the D ep ar tm en t 11 em ploy ed constitu tio n ally

adequate procedures in depriving th e claim ant of that 12 in te res t. Se e Tr i- Sta te Gen erati on &T rans m iss ion A ss’ n, I

nc . v . D ’A nto nio , 201 2- 13 N MS C- 039, ¶

38, 289 P
. 3d 1 232. 14 B. Ther e w as n o du e pr o ce s s viola tion w here the re wa s neith er errone ous 15 proced ur a l deprivation of the p rivate inte rest n or probable value in th e 16 additional or substit ute proced ural safeguards 17 { 20} T he se co nd Mathews te st r equir es e xa m ining bo th the r isk that the pr ivate 18 int er es t w ill be e rr one ousl y de pr ive d w iththe pr oc ed

ur es use d and any

pr oba ble va lue 19 of ad di ti on al or s ub st it ut e p ro ced ur al saf eg ua rd s. See M

athews , 424 U
. S. a t 33 5

.15

1 1. Er ro ne ou s p ro ce du ra l d ep ri vat ion 2 { 21} I n e xa m i n i n g t h e p o t e n t i a l r i s k o f e rr o n e o u s d e p r i v a t i o n , w e l o o k t o the 3 pr oc edur es as a who le

. See In re Co m m ’n I nv es tigati on I

nto 199 7 E

arni ngs of U

. S. 4 W est Comm c’ns, Inc. , 199 9- N MS C- 016, ¶ 26, 127 N
. M. 254, 980 P
. 2d 3 7 ( ci ta tio ns 5 om itt ed ). T o pre ve nt er ro ne ous de pr ivatio n inthe a dm ini str at ive c ont ex t, due pr oc es s 6 requ ire s “ ‘ re as ona

ble not ic e an d op portun ity to be he ar d and p re se nt any c la im or 7 d ef ense’ .” R ay el le n R es . , I nc . v . N. M

. Cu ltu ral

Props . R ev ie w C

omm. , 8 2014 -N MS C- 006, ¶

20, 319 P
. 3d 6 39 ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ); se e als o M ullane v. Ce nt. 9 H anov er B ank & T r. Co

. , 339 U
. S. 306 , 31- 14, 7 0 S.Ct . 652 , 94 L
. E d 86 5 ( 1950 ) 10 (r equir ing that an adj udi catio n for de pr ivatio n of pr ope rty “ be pr ec ed ed

by not ic e an d 11 oppo rtunity

for hear ing approp riate to the nature of th e case”). How ever, 12 “ co nst itu tio na l du e pr oc ess do es not r equir e ana ge nc y

to af fo rd ape tit ion er

a ll 13 el em en ts of a tra d i t i o n al jud ic ia l p ro ceed in g.” A rc hul eta , 200 5- N MS C- 006, ¶ 32 1 4 ( c i t i n g Mil ler v

. Co unt y of S anta C ruz , 796 F. Supp. 1316, 1319 (N .D . C al. 1992 ), 15 aff' d, 39 F. 3d 10 30 (9th Cir. 1994)). 16 { 22} Beca

use Gar duño did no t challenge the subs tantive determ ination that she was 17 ine lig ibl e fo r be ne fi ts, thi s is not the usu al pr oc ed

ur al due pr oc es s c as e inv olv ing a 18 pr eh eari ng d ep ri va tio n of be ne fi ts. G ar duño doe s not a rg ue that sh e w as de pr ive d of16

1 her ben ef

i t s by a lack of process provided in the hearing. T he essence of her 2 de pr ivatio n is that sh e co nti nue d to r ec ei ve the be ne fi ts dur ing the ong oin g a ppe al s 3 pr oc es s un aw ar e of

he r em plo y er ’ s a

ppe al f or 130 day s and tha t sh e w as a ct ua lly 4 inc ur ri ng a de bt. A cc or din g to G ar duño , “ [d ] ue pr oc es s r equir es prom pt not ic e w ith 5 the opp ortun ity to b e he ar d at a mea ni ng

fu l t ime a nd i n am eanin gf ul m an ne r. ” Sh e 6 poi nts to an al le ge d def ic ie nc y in noti ce an d heari ng and a rg ue s th at

she sho uld

ha ve 7 rece iv edan earl ie r no ti ce an d h eari ng . 8 { 23} W e ar e t h e r e f

o r e c a l l e d t o a s s e s s t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f p r o m

p t n o t i c e a nd 9 dis posi tio n of

f ir st- le ve l a

ppe al s onac la im an t’ s in te res t i n un em plo ym en t be ne fi ts 10 when th e in itial determ ination found the claim ant eligible and the claim ant rece ived 11 benefit paym ents throug h the first level of adm inistrative appeal. T he Ne w Me xico 12 Unem ploym ent Com

pensation sta t u t e provides that up on appeal by any party of a 13 ini tia l de te rm inatio n of e li gi bil ity , the D ep ar

tm en t m ust pr ovi de a“ re as ona

ble 14 oppo rt

uni ty f or a f ai r he ar ing

. ” N MS A 1978 , Se ct ion51- 1- 8( D ) (2 013, a m en de d in 15 2015 ). The D epartm ent’ s regulations further provid e that “ [o] nce an in i tial 16 de te rm inatio n is m ad e an d paym en t of be ne fi ts is be gu n, paym en ts s ha ll not be 17 st op pe d wi th ou t p rio r no ti ce an d a n o pp or tu ni ty to b e h eard

. . . . ” 11 .3.3 00 .30 8( E) 18 NMAC (1 /1 /2 00 3)

.17

1 { 24} N oti ce is im

portant t o du e pr oc es s be ca use the “ ri ght

to be he ar d ha s li ttl e 2 re al ity or w orth unle ss o ne is inf

orm ed that the m atte r is pe ndi ng an d can c hoos e fo r 3 him self whether to appear or defa ult, acquiesce or contest.” M ullane , 339 U
. S. a t 31 4. 4 “ D ue pr oc es s do es not r equir e the sam e fo rm of not ic e in a ll co nte xts ; i nst ea d, the 5 notice shou ld be appropriate to the nature of the case. ” Raye llen , 201 4- N MS C- 006, 6 ¶ 19 ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio ns om itt ed ). Pu t sim ply , w e m ust de te rm ine 7 w he the r the not ic e w as “ re as ona bly c al cu la te d, und er

a ll the ci rc um stanc es , to a ppr ise 8 int er es te d part ie s of th e pe ndenc y of the a ct iona nd a ff

or d th em a n op portun ity

to 9 present their obje ctions.” M ullane , 339 U. S. at 314 (citations om itted). 10 { 25} T he goa l of the U ne m plo ym en t Co m

pe nsa tio n L aw , an d the im portanc e be hin d 11 une m plo ym en t be ne fi ts, ce nte rs ar ound pr om ptl y pr ovi din g supp ort fo r the inn oc en t 12 wor ke rs who ha ve be co m e u ne m pl oyed t hr ou gh no fau lt of th ei r own . See Se ct ion51- 13 1-3

. T he Co urt of

Appe al s in M

illar obse rv ed that this sy ste m “ ne ce ssari ly

r es ult s in 14 som e paym ents being m ade upon an ini ti al determ ination of eligibilitythat are 15 subs eque ntl y

ove rt ur ne d. A s ar es ult , the [D ep ar tm en t] advis es the c la im an t tha t i f the 16 ap pe al de ci si on is ag ai ns t h i m, h e wil l b e req ui redto rep ay th e b en efi ts rece iv ed .” 17 20 13 -NMCA- 05 5, ¶ 8
. 18 { 26} W e ag re e w ith the Co urt of Appe al s in M

illar that “pr om

pt p ay m en t i s no t the18

1 onl y c onsi de ratio n of

pr oc ed ur al fai rn ess t o ac la im an t[ ;] pr om pt n oti ce of

be ne fi ts 2 being in j eopardy

m ust be [ considered] as we ll.” 2013 -N MCA -055, ¶ 17. H owever , 3 the im portanc e in avoi din g a dm ini str at ive de lay is of le ss s ign if

ic ance wher e the 4 ini tia l de te rm inatio n is one of e lig ibi lity

a nd the c la im an t i s r ec ei ving paym en ts 5 dur ing the appe al pr oc es s. H er e, the c la im s e xa m ine r’ s in it ia l de te rm inatio n 6 co nc lud ed

that G ar duño w as e lig ibl e, a nd she co nti nue d to re ce ive be ne fi ts unti l the 7 A L J’ s de te rm inatio n f

oll ow ing the he ar ing a t the f ir st l ev el of

appe al

. W e do n ot h old 8 that anyc la im

of la te not ic e of

a n a ppe al or anyla te ti m ing of th e he ar ing c an not 9 re s u l ti n a du e p ro ce s s v i o l at i o n . I n s t ea d , o u r h o l d i n g re qu i re s we i g h i n g a c l ai m an t ’s 10 de pr ivatio n of an im

portant pr ivate int er es t, suc h a s un em plo ym en t be ne fi ts, r el at ive 11 to pr oc edur es us edin su ch a de pr iv at io n. See W elch v . T hom pson , 20 F
. 3d 6 36, 639 12 (5th Cir. 1994 ) (requiring that if th ere is a d eprivation, “ we m ust determ ine whether 13 the pr oc ed

ur es re la tiv e to that de pr ivatio n w er e co nst itu tio na lly suf fi ci en t. ” (c itatio n 14 and footno te om itted)). 15 { 27} In Ne w Me xico, the distin guish ing fa ctor used to determ ine whether there w as 16 or wa s not a v iolation of d ue process rights depends on whether the defective notice 17 de pr ive d th e cl ai m an t of the abil ity

to part ic ipate in the pr oc ee din g. See F ranco v. 18 Ca rls bad M

un. Sc hs. , 200 1- NMCA-0 42 , ¶ ¶ 6, 14, 130 N
. M. 543 , 28 P
. 3d 5 3119

1 (h old ing that a

not ic e re co m

m en din g te rm inatio n of

a n e m plo y ee to the board

w ith out 2 notice to the em

ploy ee of e m

ploy ee’ s right to attend and dispu te t he claim s violated 3 du e p ro ces s) , re co gni

ze d in Lo bat o v. N. M

. E nv ’t D ep ’ t, 201 2- N MS C– 002, ¶ 13, 267 4 P. 3d 6 5. T he re is at le ast on e inst an ce w he n ev en tua l notice was dee m ed 5 co nst itu tio na lly

su ffi ci ent i n th e adm ini str at ive c ont ex t be ca use c la im an t w as not 6 deprived of an oppo rtunity to be heard by

participating in th e proceeding. I n Uhden 7 v. N. M

. O il Co nse rv ati on C

om m iss ion a lessee of oil and gas in terests provided no tice 8 by pub lic at ionof

tw o a dj udi catio ns p ur

portin g to inc re as e w el l sp ac ing on a 9 landowne r’ s pr ope rty , w hich th e lando w ne r did not r ec ei ve , a nd s ubse que ntl y the 10 landowne r did not atte nd o r part ic ipate in the he ar ing

. 199 1- N MS C- 089, ¶ ¶ 4, 5, 112 11 N
. M. 528 , 81 7 P.2 d 721. H ow ev er , thr ee m onths l at er the le sse e not if

ie d th e 12 landowner of two resulting orders and retained subsequent roy alty paym ents to offset 13 th e o ve rp aym en ts . Id

. ¶ 5 T he landowne r fi le d an a ppl ic at ionf

or ahe ar ing to obt ai n 14 rel ie f fro m

th e two ord ers . Id

. T he landowne r atte nde d and par tic ipate d in that he ar ing 15 an d a th ird ord er was i s s ue d d en y in g h er ap pl ic at io n fo r rel ie f. Id

. ¶ 5. I n th e 16 subs equent a

ppeal to this Court, we declare d the first two orders void reasoning that 17 se rv ic e by publ ic at ion in that co nte xt vio la te d due pr oc es s re qui re m en ts of r ea sona ble 18 no ti ce. Id

. ¶ 13. A s to the third o rder, this Court st at ed , “ We d o find that Uhden20

1 eventually

had notice and an opp ortunityto be heard on the issue of s pacing

. . . ” Id

. 2 T he Co urt de te rm ine d th at e ve ntu al not ic e co upl ed

w ith the ab ili ty to par

tic ipate in 3 th e p ro ceed in gs m etth e req ui rem en ts of d ue pro ces s. See Id

. ¶ ¶ 10, 13. 4 { 28} E ve n th oughG ar duño did not re ce ive not ic e of he r em plo y er ’ s a ppe al f or 130 5 day s, w e cannot

c onc lud e that the risk of e rr one ous de pr ivatio n of une m plo ym en t 6 be ne fit s is unn ec es sari ly hig h a s ac onse que nc e of the pr oc ed

ur es uti liz ed

by the 7 D ep ar tm en t. In this case, the Depar tm ent com

pl e t e l y a dher ed to the protocol s outli ned 8 in the Unem

ploym ent Com

pensation statutes and accom pany ing regulation s as 9 de sc ri be d in M

illar , inclu d i n g n o t ceasing paym ents without prio r notice and an 10 o pp or tu ni ty to b e h eard

. Se e M illar , 201 3- N MC A -0 55, ¶ ¶ 7- 9; se e als o 11 11. 3. 300. 308 (E) N MA C ( 1/1 /20 03) ( “ O nc e anini tia l de te rm inatio n is m ad e an d 12 paym en t of

be ne fi ts i s be gun, paym en ts s ha ll not be sto ppe d w ith out

pr ior not ic e an d 13 an oppo rtunity

to be heard. ”. T he er

ro ne ous de pr ivatio n that G ar duño a lle ge s w oul d 14 oc cur dur ing the de lay in the de ci sio n of

ase co nd- tie r ap pe al w hic h co uld r ev er se the 15 initial determ ination . B ut prior to and during the appeal, Garduño was rec eiving h er 16 be ne fi ts and

w as de pr ive d of

nothin g. Mo re ove r, dur ing the appe al s pr oc es s, G ar duño 17 w as a ff

or de d a bund an t pr oc es s th at

inc lud ed ahe ar ing a nd o ppor

tun iti es to obt ai n 18 co unse l, pr es en t e vid en ce , a nd c onf ro nt and c ro ss- ex am ine a dve rs e w itn es se s.21

1 2. P ro ba bl e val ue of ea rl ie r no ti ce or of ad di ti on al o r su bs ti tu te p ro ce du ra l 2 safeguards 3 { 29} W e ne xt e xa m ine a ny pos sib le va lue of the ad dit ion al sa fe guard s pr of fe re d by 4 G ar duño

. G ar duño a rg ue s th at she sho uld ha ve r ec ei ve d an e ar lie r not ic e an d 5 he ar ing

. I nhe re nt i n th is que sti on i s whe the r the out co m e w oul d have be endif fe re nt 6 if the D ep ar

tm en t had pr ovi de d the ad dit ion al pr oc es s G ar duño r eque sts . Cf. State ex 7 re l. Ch il dr en , Y

ou th & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Ch rist op he r B. , 201 4- N MC A -0 16, ¶ 7, 316 8 P. 3d 9 18 ( “ [I ] n or de r to s howade nia l of due pr oc es s, we do r equir e the [ cl ai m an t] 9 to ‘ dem onstrate that there is a re asonable likelih ood th at the outcom e m igh t have been 10 dif fe re nt[ ] ’ ha d th e de nie d pr oc ed ur e be ena ff

or de d. ” (T hir d a lte rn at iona nd e m pha sis 11 in origin al) (inter

nal quot ation m arks and citation om itted)). 12 { 30} G ar duño r el ie s on W at er s- Has ki ns v. Hum an Se rv ic es Depa rtmen t, In co me 13 Supp ort

D iv isi on to arg ue that DW S’ s late not ic e of the pe ndi ng a

ppe al a m ount ed

to 14 “ a fa lse repre sentation o r concealm ent o f m at erial f acts,” which im

plied 15 “ ‘ represe ntation s that are contrary to the essential facts to be relied on, e ven when 16 m ad e inn oc en tly

or by m ist ak e’
. ” 2009 -N MS C- 031, ¶ 24, 146 N
. M. 391 , 210 P
. 3d 1 7 8 1 7 (c i t at i o n o m i t t ed ) ( h o l d i n g t h at b ec au s e t h e a g en cy cl ea rl y kn ew o f c l ai m an t ’s 18 ine lig ibl e status but

c ont inu ed

to pay he r fo od s ta m

p bene fi ts f

or e igh t y ears w hil e the 19 cl ai m an t ha d no w ay

of kno w ing she w as ine lig ibl e, the a ge nc y w as e sto ppe d f

ro m22

1 later attem

pting to recoup the paid benef its). In that case, this Court appli ed a theory 2 of e qui ta ble e sto ppe l, a n is sue w hic h G ar duño doe s no t arg ue on app ea l. Furthe r, the 3 W ate rs-H ask ins hol din g is not

dis posi tiv e be ca

use G ar duño w as m ad e aw ar e of the 4 poss ibi lity

of ap pe al an d of the poss ibi lity of ha vin g to pay ba ck be ne fi ts s houl d sh e 5 los e on a

ppe al

. T he not ic e to G ar duño state d, “ If y our e m plo y er c ha lle nge s ade ci sio n 6 allowing benefits to y ou and the appeal decision is against y ou, y ou will be required 7 to repay

those benefits.” G arduñ o ap p ea rs to be m aking an equit able estoppel 8 ar gum en t c ouc he d inpr oc ed ur al due pr oc es s; h owe ve r, be ca use G ar duño did

not 9 cr oss -a ppe al the Co urt of

Appe al s’ a dve rs e equit ab le e sto ppel d et er m inatio n, the 10 iss ue is not

be fo re us. 11 { 31} H er e, the de lay ed not ic e of ap pe al G ar duño re ce ive d is m or e an al ogou s to the 12 ev en tua l no tic e re ce ive d inUhden . D espite the delay , G arduño stil l rece ived not ice 13 of the he ar ing an d a

ppe al pr ior

to the he ar ing , a nd the de lay did not pr ev en t G ar duño 14 fro m att en di ng an d pa rti ci pa ti ng in th e DW S ap pe al he ari ng . See 11. 3. 500. 10( A )( 1) 1 5 N MA C ( 1 / 1 / 2 0 0 3 )

. A t t h e ap p e a l h e a r i n g , t h e A L J h e a r d t e s t i m o n y f r o m G ar duño , 16 the sto re m an ag er , a n em plo y ee , an d the sto re ’ s lo ss p re ve nti on i nve sti ga tor ; and the 17 A L J c onsi de re d e vi de nc e con sis tin g of w ri tte n st at em en ts, pol ic ie s, r ec ei pts , a nd 18 sur ve ill an ce vid eo . Like U

hde n, G ar duño w as not

de pr ive d of

a n op portun ity

to be23

1 he ardon th e is su e o f rep aym en t o f un em pl oym en t b en efi ts . 2 { 32} The M innesot a Court o f Ap p eals considered a due process argum ent sim ilar 3 to G arduño’s and added anot her elem ent requiring not ice of the intere st at stake. I n 4 Sc hul te v . T

rans portati on U

nli m ite d, I

nc . , adis ch ar ge d em

plo y ee r ec ei ve d no tic e of 5 a hear ing re quested by his em ploy er to challenge the unem ploym ent benefits he had 6 alrea dy rec eived. 354 N. W .2d 8 3 0 , 831 (Minn . 1984). B ecause the em ploy ee w as 7 re em plo y ed be fo re the he ar ing a nd w as not inf orm ed of the pot en tia l r equir em en t of 8 re paym en t up on r ev er sa l of the ini tia l de ci sio n to a w ar d be nefi ts, the e m plo y ee did 9 no t at te nd th e h eari ng . Id

. at 831 -3 2. The M innesot a Court held that the notice was 10 “ affir m atively m isleading” and resulted in a denial of due proces s b ec au s e it failed 11 to co m

m un ic at e th e in te res t at st ak e. Id

. a t 83 5; se e also D ild

a v . Q ue rn , 612 F
. 2d 12 1055 , 105 7 ( 7thCi r. 198 0) ( hol din g a due pro ce ss viol at ion fo r la ck of not ic e of the 13 poss ibl e de cr ease in a fo od s ta m p a llo tm en t be ca

use not ic e did

not m eanin gf

ull y 14 inform

persons so th ey

could protect their interest)). 15 { 33} Garduño’s ca se is m ore like cases from the Court of Appeals of Mi nnesota that 16 dis tin gui sh Sc hul te wher e the Court ultim ately held that there w as no consti tutio nal 17 violatio n when the em ploy ee did pa rti ci pa te in th e h eari ng . See Co m m ’r of Na t. R es . 18 v. Ni co lle t Ct

y. P ub. W ate r/W et lan ds H ea rin gs U nit , 633 N
. W
. 2d 25, 30 (M inn

. Ct
.24

1 App. 2001 ) (a ffirm ing an appellate denial of t he appellant’ s due process claim based 2 on c onst itu tio na lly

va lid not ic e of

the he ar ing be ca

use the appe llant k

ne wthe 3 pot en tia l c onse que nc es of ar ev er sa l of

the ini tia l de ci sio n and p ar tic ipate d in the 4 appeal with coun sel); se e al so Aub in v. Fami ly Dol la r, In c., No . A1 4 -0 4 8 3 , 2 0 1 4 WL 5 6724 937, a t *4 -5 ( Mi nn. Ct . App
. D ec . 1, 201 4) ( hol din g th at onl ine sy ste m

of 6 ap pe al s di d no t vi olate due pr oc es s rig hts be ca use it “ w as not

a ff irm at ive ly 7 m isl ea din g” a nd i t a de qua te ly e xpl ai ne d th e “ pot en tia l c on s e q u e n c e s ” o f

f a i l ing to fi le 8 a ti m el yappe al ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed )) ; Ko ch v . She lda hl , N o. A 03-156 2, 2004 WL 9 1878 786, a t *4 ( Mi nn. Ct
. App. A ug. 19, 200 4) ( de te rm ini ng tha t e m plo y ee w as not 10 en tit le d to not ic e of co nse que nc es of los ing anune m plo ym en t be ne fi ts a

ppe al unt il 11 she rece ived not ice that the em ploy er had, in fact, appealed and concludin g that when 12 face d with the decision of whether to participate in the appeal, the em ploy ee also had 13 not ic e of

the c onse que nc es of

los ing a n a

ppe al thu s th er e w as no d ue pr oc es s 14 violatio n). In Garduño’s case, lik e th e Nicollet c as e, the la te not ic e did

not pr ev en t 15 Ga rd uño from

participating in th e appeal hear ing. The facts also indicate that 16 Ga rd uño, like Nicollet w a s gi ve n no t i c e of t he po t e nt i a l c on se qu e nc e s of l os i ng an 17 ap pe al

. G ar duño ’ s partic ipatio n in the appe al he ar ing c oupl ed w ithhe r not ic e of

the 18 po te nt ia l co ns eq ue nc es was n ot “ affi rm at iv el y m is le ad in g.”25

1 { 34} Even though Garduño wa s unawar e o f her e m ploy er’ s appeal for a subs tantial 2 tim e, Ga rd u ño’s argum ent overlook s that the noti ce of c laim determ ination dated 3 Marc h 12 , 201 0 s ta te d th at “ [i ] f y our

e m plo y er c ha lle nge s ade ci sio n a llo w ing 4 benefits to y ou and the appeal d ecision is against y ou, y ou will b e re quired to repay 5 those benefits.” Further, the August 3, 2010, notice of hearing the Depar tm ent m ailed 6 to Gard uñ o in fo rm ed

G ar duño of

the iss ue s to be a ddr es se d, inc lud ing the iss ue of 7 w he the r she le ft

he r em pl oym en t wi tho ut g ood ca use or w as dis ch ar ge d f

or 8 m is co nd uc t. The notice c ontained refere nces to the legal and regulatory bases relate d 9 to those iss ue s. T he not ic e inc lud ed inf orm at ionr equir ed by the re gul at ion s m eant 10 to i nf orm G ar duño of

the iss ue s to be a ddr es se d so she co uld pr ep ar e fo r the he ar ing

. 11 See 11.3.500.9(D ) N MAC ; 11.3.500.9(D )(1), (3) N MAC
. 12 { 35} W e ar e n ot persuaded that there was p robable value to Gar duño ’ s proffer ed 13 additio nal procedural p rotection in rece iving earlier notice. T he requested addition al 14 pr oc ed

ur es w ou l d

n o t ha ve c hange d th e out co m e of the f ina l e lig ibi lity

de te rm inatio n. 15 G ar duño w as dis ch ar ge d f ro m em plo ym en t for he r ow n m isc ondu ct , a nd n o a m ount 16 of ti m e w oul d have pe rm itt ed he r to s howoth er w ise

. I nde ed , be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt, 17 Garduño’s counsel acknowledged that the Depar tm ent’ s eligibil ity

decision was 18 pr oba bly c or re ct . A ddi tio na lly , G ar duño c an not pr ove that e ar lie r not ic e w oul d have26

1 le d to asm al le r ove rp ay m en t debt w he re , e ve n a ft er

she r ec ei ve d a ct

ua l no tic e of

the 2 ap pe al , she c ont inu ed

to co lle ct be ne fi ts v oluntari ly

inc re as ing the ri sk tha t sh e w oul d 3 ha ve ahig he r ove rp ay

m en t de bt. 4 { 36} T he re w oul d be no ad de d va lue in a spe ed ie r not ic e an d he ar ing w he re it w oul d 5 not ha ve a ff or de d a ddi tio nal pr ote ct ion s f ro m a n e rr one ous de pr ivatio n of the 6 conti nua tio n of

be ne fi ts o r fr om

aw ro ngf ul o rd er to re pay be ne fi ts. T he Co urt of 7 Appe al s inthi s ca se fa ile d to vie w the pr oc es s as a w hol e by f oc usi ng o n th e la ck

of 8 a spe ci fi c ty

pe of not ic e an d no t c onsi de ri ng the abund an t pr oc es s and s af eg uard s 9 af fo rd ed to G ar duño

. A cc or din gly , the late not ic e did not vio la te due pr oc es s. 10 { 37} W e al so n ote that the D ep ar tm en t ha s th e le ga l r igh t t o r ec oup ove rp ai d 11 be ne fit s, ev en th os e b e n e f i ts m is ta ke nl y

ov erp ai d b y

th e Dep art m en t. Se e, e . g. , 12 E l l e nd

e r v . S c hw e i k er , 5 75 F. Su

pp. 590 , 593 , 600 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. 198 3) (“ W e do n ot 13 que sti on the G ove rn m en t’ s le ga l r igh t t o c oll ec t ba ck a ll le git im at e ove rp ay

m en ts o f 14 [Feder al Supplem ental Social Se curity Incom e] benefits from

rec ipients who are 1 5 p r e s e n t l y a

b l e t o r e p a y th e i r

d e b t s a f t e r t h e y o b t a i n t h e i r f

u l l [ S o c i a l S e c u r i t y] 16 ch ec ks. ”) ; see generally Se ct ion51- 1- 38 ( de sc ri bin g a cl ai m an t’ s li ab ili ty f or 17 unem ploym ent benefit overpaym ent). 18 C . Th e Go ve rn m en t’ s in te re st in cl ud es the func tio n invol ve d an d th e fi sc al27

1 an d ad m in ist ra ti ve b ur de ns t ha t th e ad di ti on al o r su bs ti tu te p ro ce du ra l 2 re qu ir em en t en ta ils 3 { 38} The third factor of the Mathews te st is “ the G ove rn m en t’ s in te re st, inc lud ing 4 the f unc tio n inv olv ed

a nd the f isc al a nd a dm ini str at ive bur de ns tha t the a ddi tio na l or 5 subs titute procedural requirem ent would entail.” Mathews , 42 4 U.S. at 3 35
. Mathews 6 de sc ri be d th is f

ac tor a s ac onsi de ratio n of

“ the pub lic int er es t” w hic h in cl ude s “ the 7 adm ini str at ive bur de n and o the r soc ie ta l c ost s” a sso ci at ed w ithpr ovi din g th e 8 pr op os edad d i t i o n a l pr oc edur al saf eg ua rd s. Id

. at 347
. I n di sc uss ing thi s te st, 9 Mathews looked b oth to the financial burden on the adm inistration and to the effec t 10 the c ost s of ad dit ion al pr oc ed ur es fo r unde se rv ing r ec ipi en ts m ay ha ve on d es er

vin g 11 reci pi en ts . Id

. at 347-48. T he De partm ent argues tha t t he governm ent’ s interest at 12 iss ue he re is in r ec oupi ng b en ef its e rr one ousl y

pa id t o c la im an ts who d id n ot d es er ve 13 th em . W e disagree. The added procedural safeguards G arduño requests are m ore 14 tim el y not ic e an d he arin g. T hus, w e m ust de te rm ine the a dde d burd enon the 15 D ep ar tm en t t o pr ovi de am or e tim el y not ic e an d he ar ing

. I t a

ppe ar s to us tha t the 16 ad de d burd enof

not if y ing c la im an ts o f ane m plo y er ’ s a

ppe al soo ne r is m ini m al

. 17 Significantly , the D epartm ent does n o t contest our conclus ion. In fac t, at oral 18 ar gum en t be fo re thi s C ourt, the D ep ar tm en t st at ed

that c la im an ts are cu rren tly28

1 pr ovi de d w ithnot ic e of ap pe al an d an appe al he ar ing m uc h soone r than oc curr ed in 2 Garduñ o’s ca se . 3 { 39} Whil e the pr ivate int er es t i n th e co nti nua tio n of be ne fi ts i s im portant, the re is 4 a ve ry lowr isk of e rr one ous de pr ivatio n un de r the pr oc ed ur es ut il iz ed

by the 5 De partm ent. T he interest in the contin uation o f benefits w as attenuated wher e 6 G ar duño re ce ive d be ne fi ts thr ough the fi rs t le ve l of adm ini str at ive ap pe al

. 7 Unem ploym ent benefits hearings m ust com port with d ue process and be conducted 8 in s uc h am an ne r as to as ce rt ai n the subs tanti al ri ght s of part ie s; f undam en ta l f

ai rn es s 9 is the essence of due process. More specifically , a claim ant is entitled to a full, fair, 10 an d im

part ia l he ar ing w hic h c onf orm s to the f

undam en ta l pr inc ipl es of due pr oc es s 11 and which includes the right to confront and cross-ex amin e w itnesses. In this case, 12 the D ep ar

tm en t pr ovi de d and G ar duño r ec ei ve d a de qua te not ic e and a fundam en ta lly 13 fai r, fu ll , and im

pa rti al he ari ng . 14 IV. CO NC LUS ION 15 { 40} Garduño was not deprived of a protected property interest wher e she continued 16 to r ec ei ve be ne fi ts up unt il it w as de te rm ine d that she w as ine lig ibl e fo r the be ne fi ts. 17 T he D epart m en t’s la te not ic e of ape ndi ng a

ppe al did not de pr ive G ar duño of

due 18 pr oc es s of

laww he re the la te not ic e ne ith er pr ej udi ce d he r ab ili ty to de fe nd a ga ins t29

1 the e m pl oyer’s a sse rt ionthat sh e ha d be enf ir ed f or m isc ondu ct

nor pr ej udi ci al ly 2 de lay ed

he r m er its he ar ing

. 3 { 41} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice 6 WE CO NCUR:
7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 8 BARBAR

A J. VIGIL, Ch ief Justice
9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 10 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice
11

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 12 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice
13

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 14 RIC HAR

D C . B OSSON , Just ice, Re tired 15 Si tt in g b y D es ign at ion