The New Mexico Court of Appeals held in Wolinsky v. New Mexico Corrections Department1 that the state Fair Pay for Women Act’s definition of “employer” extends to the State of New Mexico and its agencies. In doing so, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s arguments that (1) the Legislature did not intend to subject the state to the statute’s requirements; and (2) that the “general grant of immunity” in the New Mexico Tort Claims Act applies, granting sovereign immunity to the state for any Fair Pay for Women Act (FPWA) claims. The New Mexico Supreme Court denied certiorari. This denial leaves the court of appeals decision as the controlling precedent unless the Supreme Court reconsiders the issue in a future case.
Background on the FPWA
The New Mexico Legislature enacted the FPWA in 2013 to ensure that women would be compensated at a rate no less than the rate paid to men for equal work on jobs that require equal skill, effort and responsibility, under similar working conditions. The FPWA provides limited exceptions to that requirement for seniority systems, merit systems, or systems that measure earnings by quantity or quality of production. The FPWA defines an “employer” as “a person employing four or more employees and any person acting for an employer.”
Factual Background
Plaintiff Melinda Wolinksy sued her employer, the New Mexico Corrections Department (a department of the State of New Mexico), for sex-based pay discrimination in violation of the FPWA. Plaintiff alleged that her salary was approximately $8,000 less than that of a male employee who was employed in the same job description/level.
The Court’s Rationale
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims, arguing that: (1) because the FPWA did not expressly include the state as an “employer,” the department was immune from suit; and (2) that the “general grant of immunity” in the state Tort Claims Act provided it with immunity. The state district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, and plaintiff appealed.
In evaluating the dispute, the Court of Appeals reviewed the history of state sovereign immunity in New Mexico. In the 1975 case Hicks v. State, the New Mexico Supreme Court abolished common law sovereign immunity for tort actions. The Court concluded that sovereign immunity was “causing a great degree of injustice” that rendered the doctrine of sovereign immunity unjustifiable. In response to Hicks, the Legislature enacted two statutes the following year. The Tort Claims Act reinstated the state’s sovereign immunity...
