Opinion ID: 164278
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reassignment under NMHRA

Text: 59 The NMHRA prohibits employers from refusing to reasonably accommodate an individual's disability. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-1-7(J) (2000). The statute does not define what constitutes a reasonable accommodation. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission regulations, however, define reasonable accommodation as such modifications or adaptations of the work environment or job responsibilities of a handicapped person as are necessary to enable him or her to perform the essential functions of the job in question.  9 N.M. Admin. Code tit. 1.1.7 (emphasis added). The New Mexico state courts have yet to decide the question of whether reasonable accommodation under the NMHRA requires reassignment. In the absence of any controlling interpretation from the state courts, we must attempt to predict how the New Mexico Supreme Court would rule on the issue. 7 See Fields v. Farmers Ins. Co., 18 F.3d 831, 834 (10th Cir.1994). 60 Albert argues that the district court erred by holding that the NMHRA does not require reassignment as a reasonable accommodation. Albert contends that we should look to decisions interpreting the ADA to conclude that the NMHRA does require reassignment. 8 The New Mexico Supreme Court, however, has cautioned against just such an application of federal decisions in interpreting the state human rights act: 61 In interpreting our State Human Rights Act, we have previously indicated that it is appropriate to rely upon federal civil rights adjudication for guidance in analyzing a claim under the Act, with the following reservation: Our reliance on the methodology developed in the federal courts, however, should not be interpreted as an indication that we have adopted federal law as our own. Our analysis of this claim is based on New Mexico statute and our interpretation of our legislature's intent ... we are not binding New Mexico law to interpretations made by the federal courts of the federal statute. 62 Gonzales v. N.M. Dep't of Health, 129 N.M. 586, 11 P.3d 550, 557 (2000). To resolve the issue at hand we must interpret New Mexico's statute, not apply a methodology for dealing with the resolution of a claim. Were we to simply apply the rationale of this court in requiring reassignment under the ADA without an examination of New Mexico's statute we would gloss over important differences. In doing so, we would commit precisely the kind of error the New Mexico Supreme Court took pains to forestall. 63 Examining the NMHRA reveals that the language of the statute differs significantly from the language of the ADA. In Midland Brake, this court relied heavily on the ADA's statutory definitions of reasonable accommodation and qualified individual to conclude that reassignment could be required. Midland Brake, 180 F.3d at 1161. Indeed, the ADA's definition of reasonable accommodation explicitly includes reassignment to a vacant position. Id. The NMHRA does not contain any analogous language. 64 While Albert points out that the Act was intended to eliminate unlawful discriminatory practice, nothing in that broad purpose requires that reasonable accommodation be read to include reassignment. Albert also argues that job in question should be read to include whatever job is at issue, either the previously held position or the position the employee seeks as an accommodation. We decline to adopt that reading. The reference in the regulations to the job responsibilities of a handicapped person, can reasonably be read to limit the consideration to an existing job. Moreover, the state regulations were drafted some eight years after the ADA was enacted, but New Mexico did not adopt the language used in the ADA to define reasonable accommodation. 65 In Midland Brake, we recognized the burden imposed by requiring reassignment, but held that the language of the statute required the imposition of that burden. Id. at 1164, 1167. We decline to impose that burden under the NMHRA in the absence of any statutory language or evidence of legislative intent supporting such a reading. Accordingly, we conclude that the New Mexico Supreme Court would not read the NMHRA to require reassignment. Because Albert has acknowledged that she could not reasonably be accommodated in her former job and we conclude that reassignment is not required under the NMHRA, summary judgment on the NMHRA claim was appropriate.