Opinion ID: 813693
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Implied Employment Contract

Text: Plaintiffs next argue that they had an implied employment contract, which -8- the City breached in terminating them without cause. Aplt. Open. Br. 20. Under New Mexico law, employment without a definite term is presumed to be at will. Trujillo v. N. Rio Arriba Elec. Co-op, Inc., 41 P.3d 333, 341 (N.M. 2001). At will employment is terminable “at any time and for any reason.” Id. New Mexico courts recognize two exceptions to this rule: (1) retaliatory discharge, and (2) an implied employment contract. Id. Under the second exception, an employer’s conduct, representations, or even employee handbook may create an implied contract that restricts an employer’s power to discharge an employee. Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., 857 P.2d 776, 780 (N.M. 1993). However, such representation must “be sufficiently explicit to give rise to reasonable expectations of termination for good cause only.” Id. at 783. As the City points out, Plaintiffs have failed to allege specific facts that create an implied employment contract. Instead, Plaintiffs’ opening brief merely recites the law we are to apply when determining whether an implied employment contract exists. See Aplt. Open. Br. 20–26. Moreover, Plaintiffs seem to contend that because our inquiry is factual in nature, there is, by default, a genuine issue of material fact. See id. at 23. We disagree, and find Plaintiffs have failed to raise an issue of fact that the City’s policies, representations, or conduct created an implied employment contract. At oral argument, for example, Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the City led Plaintiffs to believe that they would be treated like other employees. This statement, even if we assume it to be true, lacks the -9- specificity required to create a reasonable expectation of termination only for cause. This is especially so where Plaintiffs’ employment forms expressly state they were unclassified, the MSO expressly distinguishes Plaintiffs’ rights and benefits from classified employees, 3 and Plaintiffs themselves knew they were treated differently than classified employees, for example, with their increased salary. In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of fact. Additionally, were we persuaded that an implied employment contract existed, the City was justified in terminating Plaintiffs. The City provided adequate reason for each termination, ranging from failure to satisfactorily perform job duties to failure to return to work. Aplt. App. 204–05. These reasons all fall within the 311 CCC’s non-exclusive list of “justifiable causes” for Immediate Termination and make Plaintiffs’ terminations proper. See id. at 188. C. Wrongful Termination, FMLA, and Public Policy Concerns The City argues that Plaintiffs have not properly preserved their wrongful 3 At oral argument, Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the MSO affords unclassified employees the same rights as classified employees. Counsel relied on § 3-1-6(E) of the MSO, which provides that unclassified employees “shall be entitled to all of the rights and benefits to which classified employees are entitled except the benefits provided for in §§ 3-1-23, 3-1-24 and 3-1-25.” Aplt. App. 307. Counsel seems to suggest that the City’s failure to include the word “rights” in the second half of the sentence evinces an intent to give unclassified employees the same rights, though not benefits, as classified employees. We are not persuaded and find the words “rights” and “benefits” to be interchangeable in this context. Simply put, unclassified employees are not entitled to classified employees’ rights or benefits under §§ 3-1-23 to 3-1-25, which relate to discipline, suspension, and termination. - 10 - termination and FMLA claims on appeal. Aplee. Br. 28–29. Plaintiffs respond that their wrongful termination claims are expressed through the City’s violation of the MSO and their FMLA claims are found in their “contentions concerning the disputed facts and the rules pertaining to summary judgment.” Aplt. R. Br. 26. Upon review of Plaintiffs’ opening brief, we find no references to the wrongful termination claim and only one cursory reference to the FMLA. We also note that Plaintiffs did not discuss these claims at oral argument. As such, we deem both arguments waived. See Toevs v. Reid, 685 F.3d 903, 911 (10th Cir. 2012). Finally, to the extent Plaintiffs suggest that it is against public policy to label City employees as unclassified, we reject this argument. New Mexico courts have recognized the concept of at will employment in the public sector, see City of Albuquerque v. AFSCME Council 18, 249 P.3d 510, 513 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011), and we find no reason to disturb this position. AFFIRMED. - 11 -