presuming that the district court did not rely on letters attached to the plaintiff’s response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and declining to treat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment
How later courts described this case
- presuming that the district court did not rely on letters attached to the plaintiff’s response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and declining to treat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment
- presuming that the district court did not rely on letters attached to a party’s response to another party’s motion to dismiss, and declining to treat the motion as one for summary judgment
- New Mexico does not recognize breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as a cause of action in at-will employment relationships, but does recognize it in not at-will employment relationships.
- “[W]e ask whether, under any set of facts alleged in the complaint, Defendants’ actions can be considered outside the scope of their duties and thus outside the coverage of the TCA.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BUSTAMANTE, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
{31} I concur in the portion of the opinion affirming dismissal of the Plaintiffs tort claims. I dissent from the opinion’s discussion of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. I agree that Plaintiffs case is thin, and it could be that she will not be able to prove much by the way of damages at a trial. I also agree that it is not appropriate to allow the courts to become a referee for every case of disputed employment evaluation. But I would hold that Plaintiff has alleged a sufficiently egregious set of circumstances over a long enough period of time to meet the requirements of Rule 1-012(B)(6). Employees in all circumstances, but especially in large, highly regulated endeavors such as the public schools live and die as workers based on their personnel files and evaluations. I do not see why allegedly improper negative evaluations and needless placement on corrective regimens such as PIPs are not actionable in theory. Those black marks on Plaintiffs record will affect her progress with her current school system and if she tries to move to another. Proof, of course, is another matter entirely. Plaintiff should be allowed to prove her case.