Rodriguez v. Dairy

• Decision Date: 30 June 2016
• Docket Number: NO. S–1–SC–35438,NO. S–1–SC–35426,S–1–SC–35426,S–1–SC–35438
• Citation: 378 P.3d 13,2016 NMSC 029
• Parties: Noe Rodriguez, Worker–Respondent, v. Brand West Dairy, Uninsured Employer, Employer–Respondent, and New Mexico Uninsured Employers' Fund, Insurer–Petitioner, Maria Angelica Aguirre, Worker–Respondent, v. M.A. and Sons, Inc. Chili Products, Employer–Respondent, and Food Industry Self Insurance Fund of New Mexico, Insurer–Respondent. Noe Rodriguez, Worker–Respondent, v. Brand West Dairy, Uninsured Employer, Employer–Petitioner, and New Mexico Uninsured Employers' Fund, Insurer, Maria Angelica Aguirre, Worker–Respondent, v. M.A. and Sons, Inc. Chili Products, Employer–Petitioner, and Food Industry Self Insurance Fund of New Mexico, Insurer–Petitioner.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

378 P.3d 13

2016 NMSC 029

Noe Rodriguez, Worker–Respondent

v.Brand West Dairy, Uninsured Employer, Employer–RespondentandNew Mexico Uninsured Employers' Fund, Insurer–Petitioner

Maria Angelica Aguirre, Worker–Respondent

v.M.A. and Sons, Inc. Chili Products, Employer–RespondentandFood Industry Self Insurance Fund of New Mexico, Insurer–Respondent.

Noe Rodriguez, Worker–Respondent

v.Brand West Dairy, Uninsured Employer, Employer–PetitionerandNew Mexico Uninsured Employers' Fund, Insurer

Maria Angelica Aguirre, Worker–Respondent

v.M.A. and Sons, Inc. Chili Products, Employer–PetitionerandFood Industry Self Insurance Fund of New Mexico, Insurer–Petitioner.

NO. S–1–SC–35426

NO. S–1–SC–35438

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Filing Date: June 30, 2016

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Richard P. Bustamante, Special Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Insurer–Petitioner New Mexico Uninsured Employers' Fund.

Maestas & Suggett, P.C., Paul Maestas, Albuquerque, NM, for Employer–Respondents and Employer–Petitioners Brand West Dairy, M.A. and Sons, Inc. and Insurer–Respondent and for Insurer–Petitioner Food Industry Self Insurance Fund of New Mexico.

New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, Gail Evans, Albuquerque, NM, for Worker–Respondents Noe Rodriguez and Maria Angelica Aguirre.

Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk, Emil J. Kiehne, Sarah M. Stevenson, Albuquerque, NM, for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau.

Rachel A. Bayless, Special Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Workers' Compensation Administration.

Michael B. Browde, David J. Stout, Albuquerque, NM, for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association.

OPINION

CHÁVEZ, Justice.

{1} The New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act (Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 52–1–1

to –70 (1917, as amended through 2015), has never required employers to provide workers' compensation coverage to farm and ranch laborers. These consolidated appeals require us to resolve whether this exclusion violates the rights of those workers under the Equal Protection Clause of Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution in light of the fact that other agricultural workers are not singled out for exclusion. The Equal Protection Clause mandates that, “in order to be legal,” ostensibly discriminatory classifications in social and economic legislation “must be founded upon real differences of situation or condition, which bear a just and proper relation to the attempted classification, and reasonably justify a different rule” for the class that suffers the discrimination. Burch v. Foy , 1957–NMSC–017, ¶ 10, 62 N.M. 219, 308 P.2d 199.

{2} When litigants allege that the government has unconstitutionally discriminated against them, courts must decide the merits of the allegation because if proven, courts must resist shrinking from their responsibilities as an independent branch of government, and refuse to perpetuate the discrimination—regardless of how long it has persisted—by safeguarding constitutional rights. Such is the constitutional responsibility of the courts. Griego v. Oliver , 2014–NMSC–003, ¶ 1, 316 P.3d 865

. We conclude that there is nothing to distinguish farm and ranch laborers from other agricultural employees and that purported government interests such as cost savings, administrative convenience, and other justifications related to unique features of agribusiness bear no rational relationship to the Act's distinction between these groups. This is nothing more than arbitrary discrimination and, as such, it is forbidden by our Constitution. Accordingly, we hold that the farm and ranch laborer exclusion contained in Section 52–1–6(A) of the Act is unconstitutional, and we remand these cases for further proceedings. The Legislature is at liberty to offer economic advantages to the agricultural industry, but it may not do so at the sole expense of the farm and ranch laborer while protecting all other agricultural workers. We also determine that our holding should be given modified prospective application to the cases of Ms. Aguirre and Mr. Rodriguez and to all cases involving an injury that manifests, as defined under the Act, after the date that our mandate issues in this case pursuant to Rule 12–402(B) NMRA

.

I. BACKGROUND

{3} In 2012, Maria Angelica Aguirre worked as a chile picker in Doña Ana County for M.A. and Sons, Inc. (M.A. & Sons) for a weekly wage of approximately $300.¹ Ms. Aguirre claims that she slipped in a field and broke her wrist while picking chiles. Ms. Aguirre claims that her injury required surgery and rehabilitative therapy, she still has trouble with her wrist, and she is limited in her ability to do farm work. M.A. & Sons had workers' compensation insurance at the time of the alleged injury.

{4} In March 2013, Ms. Aguirre filed a workers' compensation complaint seeking compensation for temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, medical benefits, and attorney fees. M.A. & Sons and its insurer, the Food Industry Self Insurance Fund of New Mexico (Self Insurance Fund), raised several defenses to Ms. Aguirre's complaint, including the contention that her claims were barred by the farm and ranch laborer exclusion in Section 52–1–6(A), which provides that the Act “shall not apply to employers of ... farm and ranch laborers.” In January 2014, Ms. Aguirre filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) to conclude that the farm and ranch laborer exclusion had been declared unconstitutional; therefore, it did not bar her case. To support her argument, Ms. Aguirre attached materials related to the 2012 judgment in Griego v. New Mexico Workers' Compensation Administration , No. CV 2009–10130, 2009 WL 3611446

, a case that was brought by New Mexico farm laborers in the Second Judicial District Court. In Griego , the district court declared that the farm and ranch laborer exclusion violated the constitutional equal protection rights of the claimants in that case and entered an order against the Workers' Compensation Administration (the Administration). The Administration then appealed the district court's ruling on jurisdictional grounds and, in an unpublished memorandum opinion, the Court of Appeals dismissed the claim as moot, and further stated that because the Administration had not sought review of the constitutional issue, the Court would not “examine [ ]or draw any conclusions about it,” other than to say that the Administration “cannot now escape the effect of unchallenged parts of the district court's decision.” Griego v. N.M. Workers' Comp. Admin. , No. 32,120, mem. op. ¶¶ 1, 11, 2013 WL 6662706 (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2013) (non-precedential). The WCJ took judicial notice of the materials from Griego and admitted them for purposes of Ms. Aguirre's motion for partial summary judgment. The WCJ then denied her motion and dismissed her claim with prejudice on the basis of the farm and ranch laborer exclusion.

{5} In 2012, Noe Rodriguez worked as a dairy worker and herdsman at Brand West Dairy, earning just under $1000 every two weeks for working six days a week for eight hours per day. Mr. Rodriguez alleges that he was pushed up against a door by a cow and then head-butted by the cow, which caused him to fall face first onto a cement floor. He alleges that he suffered a traumatic brain injury

, a neck injury, and facial disfigurement and that he was in a coma for two days. According to Mr. Rodriguez, as of July 2013, he had still not been cleared by a doctor to return to work. He alleges that his employer, which did not have workers' compensation insurance, provided him with two checks for $600 after the accident.

{6} In February 2013, Mr. Rodriguez filed a workers' compensation complaint seeking compensation for temporary total disability, permanent partial disability, disfigurement, medical benefits, and attorney fees. In July 2013, the New Mexico Uninsured Employers' Fund (the UEF), which acts as the insurer for businesses without workers' compensation insurance, see § 52–1–9.1, moved to dismiss Mr. Rodriguez's claims because of the farm and ranch laborer exclusion. Mr. Rodriguez responded by arguing that the WCJ was obligated to follow the district court's ruling in Griego and that the exclusion was unconstitutional. He attached a large quantity of materials from Griego to his motion, some of which were admitted by the WCJ. The WCJ granted the UEF's motion and dismissed Mr. Rodriguez's case based on the exclusion.

{7} Pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 52–5–8(A) (1989)

, Ms. Aguirre and Mr. Rodriguez (collectively “Workers”) appealed directly to the Court of Appeals, where their appeals were consolidated. Rodriguez v. Brand W. Dairy , 2015–NMCA–097, ¶ 1, 356 P.3d 546, cert. granted , 2015–NMCERT–008, 2015 WL 10551541. Applying rational basis review, the Court of Appeals struck down the farm and ranch laborer exclusion as a violation of Workers' equal protection rights under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution. Rodriguez , 2015–NMCA–097, ¶¶ 11, 31, 356 P.3d 546. The Court then applied its holding on a modified prospective basis to any workers whose claims were pending as of March 30, 2012, and any claims filed after the date of the district court's final judgment in Griego . Rodriguez , 2015–NMCA–097, ¶ 37, 356 P.3d 546.

{8} The UEF appealed to this Court only on the issue of the Court of Appeals' modified prospective application of its holding. Brand West Dairy, M.A. & Sons, and the Self Insurance Fund (collectively “Employers”) appealed to this Court to seek review of both the constitutional issue and the modified prospective application of the holding. We granted both petitions.

II. THE FARM AND RANCH LABORER EXCLUSION VIOLATES ARTICLE II, SECTION 18 OF THE NEW MEXICO CONSTITUTION

{9} Workers contend that the farm and ranch laborer exclusion contained in Section 52–1–6(A) violates their equal protection rights under the New Mexico Constitution and does not...