Opinion ID: 165446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Negligent Retention and Supervision

Text: 24 T & B argues insufficient evidence supports the jury's finding it negligently retained and supervised Marrujo under New Mexico law. The proper standard for determining whether an employer should be held liable for negligent supervision or retention of an employee [is] ... whether the employer knew or reasonably should have known that some harm might be caused by the acts or omissions of the employee who is entrusted with such position. Ocana v. American Furniture Co., 135 N.M. 539, 91 P.3d 58, 73 (2004). 25 In this case, the jury found T & B knew or reasonably should have known of Marrujo's propensity to assault or batter employees and thus negligently retained and supervised Marrujo. 3 The evidence at trial, viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, supports the jury's finding. The evidence again showed Plaintiff repeatedly complained of Marrujo's harassment to T & B management to no avail. Further, the evidence supports the inference that Plaintiff complained to Bob Romo, a T & B production supervisor, that Marrujo pulled open her shirt exposing her chest and bra before Marrujo pulled open Plaintiff's pants exposing her underwear. Thus, a reasonable jury could infer that T & B management knew, or at a minimum, should have known, of Marrujo's propensity to assault or batter employees prior to the time Marrujo battered Plaintiff by opening up her pants. 26 Moreover, Bob Romo clearly warned T & B in a memorandum that Marrujo posed a major and detrimental situation to the company and that Marrujo's behavior was unruly, unacceptable, and negatively effected other employees at T & B. (Plaintiff's Ex. 44). Although the memorandum was dated June 15, 2000, it clearly indicated that Marrujo's inappropriate behavior had been ongoing. Further, by describing the situation as major and detrimental, a jury could reasonably infer that T & B knew or should have known of Marrujo's propensity to impose some type of harm, including assault and battery, on other employees. 27 Lastly, Plaintiff testified that Roxanne Mussleman, a T & B supervisor, was working in front of Plaintiff when Marrujo pulled open her pants exposing her underwear. Thus, at a minimum, T & B became fully aware, at that moment, of Marrujo's propensity to batter employees. Nonetheless, T & B did not reprimand or discipline Marrujo. Accordingly, the jury's finding of negligent retention and supervision against T & B was supported by the evidence. 4