In a recent employment law case, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict awarding an NMSU employee almost $125,000 in damages for retaliation and constructive discharge claims. The decision was largely unremarkable in its analysis and discussion: that actions occurring before the statute of limitations can be considered under the continuing violation doctrine; and that the sufficiency of evidence is a high standard of review under which the appellate courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the fact-finder.
Far more intriguing to me, however, what was left unsaid in the decision: how the Court came to conclude that an employee was constructively discharged in spite of obtaining an apparently successful and agreeable settlement through mediation that altered the original, offenses conditions of employment.
