 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzales v. New Mexico Department Of Health9/27/2000
hotline and also refused to instruct the jury on the issue of mitigation. On appeal, LVMC claims that, had the trial court not excluded mitigation evidence, it would have shown that substantially equivalent work existed and that Gonzales did not make reasonable attempts to obtain it. Gonzales vigorously disputed the equivalency of the two hotlines as career opportunities and also argued that she was unaware of the second hotline and any job opportunities it might present. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, involving the issue of opportunity for overtime pay rather than alternative employment, the trial court could properly have concluded that evidence of the social worker hotline was not relevant to the issue of mitigation.
D. Jury Instructions
Both parties object to the trial court's refusal to give certain of their submitted jury instructions. An appellate court reviews challenged jury instructions to determine whether they correctly state the law and are supported by the evidence introduced at trial. Pittard v. Four Seasons Motor Inn, Inc., 101 N.M. 723, 727, 688 P.2d 333, 337 (Ct. App. 1984); see Rule 1-051(A), (B) NMRA 2000.
LVMC objects to the trial court's refusal of their instruction on mitigation of damages. Because we find no error in the exclusion of the mitigation evidence, we agree with the court's decision to refuse the instruction which was based on the excluded evidence. See UJI 13-301 to -08 Introduction NMRA 2000. ("It is the evidence adduced at trial which truly determines the issues for jury determination. Regardless of the pleadings, it is the duty of the court to submit to the jury only those issues which are supported by the evidence and determinative of the case.")
Gonzales claims that the trial court erred when it refused her proposed jury instructions on disparate impact as a form of discrimination. A disparate impact claim differs from a disparate treatment claim in that it does not involve a showing of discriminatory intent, but rather addresses those situations when an apparently neutral employment policy has a discriminatory effect. Ortega v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 943 F. 2d 1230, 1242 (10th Cir. 1991); cf. Hill v. Community of Damien of Molokai, 121 N.M. 353, 364-66, 911 P.2d 861, 872- 74 (1996) (analyzing the discriminatory effect of a facially neutral restrictive covenant on group homes). A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination by showing that a "specific identifiable employment practice or policy caused a significant disparate impact on a protected group." Ortega, 943 F.2d at 1242. Statistical evidence showing that a protected class is under- represented in a given employment situation may be used to a demonstrate disparate impact. See Smith, 109 N.M. at 519 n.4, 787 P.2d at 438 n.4. In order to establish a prima facie case, "the plaintiff must offer statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question has caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group." Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 994 (1988).
As evidence of her claim, Gonzales relies primarily on an exhibit showing total overtime earnings on the LVMC psychologist hotline for the relevant period, broken down by the individual participants. On appeal, she claims the exhibit demonstrated disparate impact because Hispanic psychologists earned significantly less than their Anglo counterparts during that time period. Gonzales appears to be arguing that because the Hispanic psychologists' overtime earnings were not proportional to their representation on the hotline, this constit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 New Mexico Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|