 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bovee v. State Highway and Transportation Dep't.11/14/2002
Plaintiff Barbara Bovee appeals the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants in this Title VII action. Plaintiff sued the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (the Department) and the other defendants after she was unsuccessful in gaining employment. Her complaint alleged unlawful retaliation for an earlier action she had brought against the Department, breach of employment contract, and civil rights violations. The district court entered judgment for Defendants, having found that the Department had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons not to hire Plaintiff for each of the positions she sought.
Plaintiff raises five issues on appeal: whether the district court erred (1) when it found that the Department's reliance on Plaintiff's testimony in an earlier Title VII case constituted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for refusing to consider Plaintiff's applications with the Department; (2) when it denied Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint; (3) when it determined that the Department had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not hiring Plaintiff as an Engineer III in Santa Fe; (4) when it determined that the Department articulated legitimate, non-pretextual, non-discriminatory reasons for failing to hire Plaintiff for four positions: as an Engineer I in Santa Fe and as an Engineer Associate in Roswell, Clovis, and Santa Fe; and (5) whether the district court erred by dismissing Plaintiff's breach of contract and civil rights claims. We affirm.
Facts and Background
From 1981 through 1993, the Department employed Plaintiff, beginning as an Engineer in Training and ending as a Highway Engineer II. In 1990, Plaintiff sued the Department in federal court, claiming sex discrimination, retaliation, and violation of her constitutional rights. After filing her complaint but before trial, Plaintiff resigned her employment on the ground that she was suffering increased harassment and retaliation. During the trial to a jury in January 1993, Plaintiff testified that the Department's conduct had damaged her to such an extent that she was unable to work in engineering or in any field related to engineering for the rest of her life. Plaintiff had two expert psychologists; one testified that Plaintiff could never work again in engineering, and the other testified that with two to three years of weekly therapy, Plaintiff would "have a 'moderate' chance" of being able to return to work.
The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff of $1.8 million. However, the federal district court ordered a new trial, citing the inherent unreliability of the psychological injury claimed by Plaintiff. In September 1993, before the second trial, the case settled for $725,000, which included compensation for future economic injuries and employment problems.
In August 1994, eleven months after settling the federal case, Plaintiff applied to the Department for three positions. She first applied for a position as Engineer III in the Design and Construction Process Control Bureau in Santa Fe. The Department did not interview Plaintiff. It stated that it did not select Plaintiff for the position because the person hired had superior qualifications and expertise. Plaintiff also applied for a position as an Engineer I in the Technical Support Section of the district office in Grants. The district court found that Plaintiff was not selected for that position because one interviewer believed the person hired had more understanding of local government needs and more design experience and a second interviewer believed the person hired would have a better attitude and more patience with local governments.
Plaintiff next appli
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 New Mexico Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|