Why 2 New Mexico whistleblower cases reached opposite results

The New Mexico Court of Appeals recently reviewed two whistleblower jury trials in which the jurors came to very different conclusions. In one, the jury awarded a fired employee from the New Mexico Human Services Department (NMHSD) more than $600,000 in damages. In the other, the jury determined that the town of Taos had violated the New Mexico Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) but had good reason to fire the employee and awarded him $0 in damages. Although the two cases had some commonalities, the fired employees achieved very different results.

Overview of WPA

The WPA forbids public-sector employers, which include public departments, agencies, and political subdivisions, from taking retaliatory action against any employee who communicates about, testifies to, or objects to unlawful or improper activities, policies, or practices. The purpose of the WPA, which was passed in 2010, is to protect public-sector employees who discover and report hidden practices that waste taxpayer resources or unlawfully favor certain groups to the detriment of others.

The WPA isn't designed to protect employees who communicate about personal grievances. Whistleblowing is supposed to bring public interests to light. If an employee acts in good faith, he is protected against retaliation, even if he is ultimately shown to be mistaken.

Blowing the whistle