Cordova v. New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Dep't

• Decision Date: 28 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. CIV 08-0681 JB/ACT,CIV 08-0681 JB/ACT
• Parties: DOLORES CORDOVA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, PHILLIP SALAZAR, individually and in his official capacity, SHANNON BAXTER, and LYNETTE TRUJILLO, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

DOLORES CORDOVA, Plaintiff,

v.STATE OF NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, PHILLIP

SALAZAR, individually and in his official capacity, SHANNON BAXTER, and LYNETTE TRUJILLO, Defendants.

No. CIV 08-0681 JB/ACT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Dated: December 28, 2011

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed August 18, 2011 (Doc. 44). The Court held a hearing on October 26, 2011. The primary issues are: (i) whether sovereign immunity prohibits Plaintiff Dolores Cordova's claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634; (ii) whether the just-cause finding of Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") R. Scott Summerfield in Cordova's appeal of her dismissal to the New Mexico State Personnel Board ("NMSPB"), under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, precludes a finding of discrimination in the federal case; (iii) whether Defendants Phillip Salazar, Shannon Baxter, and Lynette Trujillo (collectively the "Individual Defendants") are entitled to summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims; (iv) whether Defendant New Mexico Tax and Revenue Department ("NMTRD") is entitled to summary judgment on Cordova's discrimination and retaliation claims; (v) whether qualified immunity bars Cordova's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities;and (vi) whether Cordova may maintain a cause of action for punitive damages against Salazar in his individual capacity. The Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds that sovereign immunity bars Cordova's ADEA claim and will grant summary judgment in the Defendants' favor on the ADEA claims contained in Counts IV and VIII. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that, when analyzing the preclusive effect of administrative agency or administrative law judge decisions, federal district courts should determine whether that decision was reviewed in the state courts, and, if so, should base its preclusion determination on that state court opinion. Here, the administrative decision was appealed to the First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County, State of New Mexico. The Court concludes that the state court decision does not address any of Cordova's discrimination claims or make any decision with respect to pretext, such that the state court decision would preclude Cordova's litigation of her Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e- to 2000e-17, and her Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12201 to 12213 ("ADA"), discrimination claims. Additionally, the Court finds that Judge Summerfield's opinion did not necessarily determine whether the Defendants' given reason for Cordova's discharge was pretextual, such that Cordova would be precluded from arguing her state-law discrimination claims. The Court also finds that Cordova has demonstrated that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether the Defendants' proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason is pretextual, such that summary judgment in the Defendants' favor on those Counts is inappropriate. The Court will thus deny the Motion for Summary Judgment as it relates to collateral estoppel and the discrimination claims. Because Cordova does not oppose the entry of summary judgment in the Defendants' favor Count X -- Violation of Civil Rights Under Color of State Law -- and Count XI -- Punitive Damages, the Court determines that summaryjudgment in the Defendants' favor on those Counts is appropriate.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

While Cordova disputes several of the Defendants' allegedly undisputed facts,¹ most of the material facts are undisputed.²

Cordova began working for the NMTRD as a Revenue Agent in July 2002, and, at the time of her dismissal, Cordova worked as a Revenue Agent Supervisor. See First Amended Complaintfor Employment Discrimination and Retaliation (Denial of Later Transfer and Wrongful Termination of Employment) and for Violation of Civil Rights Under Color of State Law ¶ 24, at 6, filed October 8, 2008 (Doc. 4)("First Amended Compl."); Memorandum of Law Supporting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 1, at 3, filed August 18, 2011 (Doc. 45)("Motion for SJ")(setting forth this fact); Response by Plaintiff Dolores Cordova to Defendant State of New Mexico's Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 1, at 3-4 (Doc. 47)("Response")(not disputing this fact). The NMTRD terminated Cordova's employment in January 2008. See First Amended Compl. ¶ 33, at 7; Motion for SJ ¶ 2, at 3 (setting forth this fact); Response ¶ 2, at 4 (not disputing this fact). Cordova appealed her termination, and the NMSPB held a two-day hearing in October of 2008. See Second Amended Recommended Decision of Administrative Law Judge R. Scott Summerfield, filed August 18, 2011 (Doc. 45-1)("Second Amended Recommended Decision"); Motion for SJ ¶ 3, at 3 (setting forth this fact); Response ¶ 3, at 4 (not disputing this fact). Following the issuance of a Recommended Decision, as well as an Amended Recommended Decision, Judge Summerfield, the ALJ the NMSPB designated to hear the case, on May 20, 2009, entered his Second Amended Recommended Decision regarding Cordova's appeal of her termination. See Second Amended Recommended Decision at 20; Motion for SJ ¶ 4, at 3-4 (setting forth this fact); Response ¶ 4, at 4-5 (not disputing this fact).

In the Second Amended Recommended Decision, Judge Summerfield concluded that the NMTRD had proved by a preponderance that, on August 17, 1988, Cordova was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. See Second Amended Recommended Decision ¶ 6, at 17; Motion for SJ ¶ 5(a), at 4 (setting forth this fact); Response ¶ 5(a), at 5 (not disputing this fact). Cordova was offered a breathalizer test, pursuant to New Mexico's implied-consent law, which sherefused, and which ultimately led to the revocation of her driver's license. See Second Amended Recommended Decision ¶ 6, at 17; Motion for SJ ¶ 5(a), at 4 (setting forth this fact); Response ¶ 5(a), at 5 (not disputing this fact). Judge Summerfield found that the NMTRD had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, following her arrest, Cordova's driver's license was revoked for approximately twenty-two months. See Second Amended Recommended Decision ¶ 7, at 18; Motion for SJ ¶ 5(b), at 4 (setting forth this fact).³

With respect to the events leading up to Cordova's termination, Judge Summerfield determined that the NMTRD proved that Cordova applied for a new position with the NMTRD in November 2007, and that she, pursuant to standard application procedures, completed an Employment Statement and an Interview Guide. See Second Amended Recommended Decision ¶ 8, at 18; Motion for SJ ¶ 5(c), at 4 (setting forth this fact); Response ¶ 5(c), at 5-6 (not disputing this fact). The NMTRD also established that, in her Interview Guide, Cordova responded, to question 10, that her driver's license had never been revoked and, to question 11, that she had never been arrested for Driving While Intoxicated ("DWI"). See Second Amended Recommended Decision ¶ 9, at 18; Motion for SJ ¶ 5(d), at 4 (setting forth this fact); Response ¶ 5(d), at 6 (not disputing this fact). Judge Summerfield determined that Cordova's responses were not honest, truthful, and accurate such that they constituted a falsification in violation of Section 3.29 of the NMTRD's Standards of Performance and Conduct Policy. See Second Amended Recommended Decision ¶ 10, at 18; Motion for SJ ¶ 5(e), at 4-5 (setting forth this fact).⁴ Cordova's failure to accuratelycomplete the Interview Guide, as the Interview Guide, Employment Statement, and Section 3.29 of the Standards of Performance and Conduct warn, was determined to constitute misconduct. See Second Amended Recommended Decision ¶ 13, at 18; Motion for SJ ¶ 5(f), at 5 (setting forth this fact).⁵ After concluding that Cordova's actions constituted misconduct, Judge Summerfield determined that the NMTRD had just cause to discipline Cordova. See Second Amended Recommended Decision ¶ 14, at 19; Motion for SJ ¶ 5(g), at 5 (setting forth this fact).⁶ Furthermore, Judge Summerfield found that the NMTRD had just cause to dismiss Cordova and that her dismissal was appropriate. See Second Amended Recommended Decision ¶¶ 22-23, at 19-20; Motion for SJ ¶¶ 5(h)-(i) (setting forth this fact).⁷

The NMSPB issued a Final Decision⁸ that amended Judge Summerfield's findings of fact and conclusions of law in several ways. See New Mexico State Personnel Board Final Decision at 1-2, filed August 18, 2011 (Doc. 45-2)("Final Decision"); Motion for SJ ¶ 6, at 5 (setting forth this fact); Response ¶ 6, at 9 (not disputing this fact). The NMTRD appealed the NMSPB's Final Decision to the First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe County, State of New Mexico which reversed the NMSPB's Final Decision, because it was "arbitrary, capricious, not based on substantial evidence, and not in accordance with law." N.M. Taxation and Revenue Dep't v. Cordova, CaseNo. D-101-CV-2009-02811, Decision ¶ 9, at 4 (dated January 5, 2011) filed August 18, 2011 (Doc. 45-3)("First Judicial District Decision"); Motion for SJ ¶ 7, at 6 (setting forth this fact).⁹ On August 2, 2011, Judgment on the Mandate was entered in the First Judicial District Court case, which stated that no further proceedings are necessary. See N.M. Taxation and Revenue Dep't v. Cordova, Case No. D-101-CV-2009-02811, Judgment on Mandate (dated August 2, 2011), filed August 18, 2011 (Doc. 45-3)("First Judicial District Judgment"); Motion for SJ ¶ 8, at 6 (setting forth this fact); Response ¶ 8, at 10 (not disputing this fact).

At the time Cordova was suspended, the NMTRD also employed Jose Martinez, whose license was suspended. See Affidavit of Dolores Cordova ¶ 5(d), at 4, filed September 6, 2011 (Doc. 47-1)("Affidavit"); Response ¶ 5(d), at 6 (setting...