Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Healthy Workforce Ordinance Ruling
Healthy Workforce Ordinance Ruling
Plaintiffs, D-202-CV-2017-02314
v.
Defendants,
and
Intervenor-Defendants.
Keep the Healthy Workforce Ordinance (HWO) Off the 2017 Ballot (Counts I, III, IV, VI) as
pleaded in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and
Application for Preliminary Injunction (Complaint), filed May 4, 2017, against Defendants
City of Albuquerque, the City Council of the City of Albuquerque, and Natalie Howard, in her
capacity as City Clerk (collectively City). The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings and
I. DISCUSSION
Intervenor-Defendants move this Court to dismiss Counts I, III, IV, and VI of Plaintiffs
Complaint. Plaintiffs Complaint generally seeks the invalidation of the HWO for being in
judgment that the HWO constitutes "logrolling" in violation of Article IV, Section 16 of the New
Mexico Constitution. [Id. 14-29, p.27] Count III seeks a declaratory judgment that the HWO
is void because it exceeds the powers granted to a home rule municipality in violation of New
Mexico Constitution Article X, Section 6(D). [Id. 43-51] Count IV contends that enactment
of the HWO by voter initiative violates the New Mexico Constitution, and Count VI asserts that
the HWO exceeds the Citys home rule powers and the territorial reach of the City. [Id. 52-
58, 65-69] Plaintiffs also seek an injunction enjoining further implementation and enforcement
N.M. Life Ins. Guar. Assn v. Quinn & Co., 1991-NMSC-036, 5, 111 N.M. 750, 809 P.2d
1278. Count I alleges that the HWO violates the constitutional prohibition against "logrolling,"
or the single subject rule, contained in Article IV, Section 16 of the New Mexico Constitution.
2
Intervenor-Defendants assert, inter alia, that the New Mexico Supreme Court has held that said
prohibition does not apply to municipal ordinances, such as the HWO, and thus dismissal is
Article IV, Section 16 of the New Mexico Constitution states in pertinent part: The
subject of every bill shall be clearly expressed in its title, and no bill embracing more than one
subject shall be passed except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification or revision
of the laws. In State ex rel. Ackerman v. City of Carlsbad, 1935-NMSC-053, 24, 39 N.M.
352, 47 P.2d 865, the Supreme Court considered whether Article IV, Section 16 of the state
Constitution applied to an ordinance and its title. The Court stated: It is not our understanding,
however, that N.M. Const. art. 4, 16, is applicable to ordinances, nor do we know of any legal
requirement that an ordinance be entitled. Id. Given that Plaintiffs offer no law to the contrary,
the Court agrees with Intervenor-Defendants that Article IV, Section 16 does not apply to
B. Dismissal of Count III is proper as it fails to state a claim that the City has
exceeded the powers granted to home rule municipality in violation of New Mexico Constitution.
Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint seeks to void the HWO under Article X, Section 6(D)
of the New Mexico Constitution because the powers granted to a home rule municipality do[]
not extend to . . . the power to modify state criminal statutes. [Complaint 44-45]
45. [HWO] section 13-16-4 requires that an employer shall not report an
employee or an employees family member to any law enforcement agency
because the employee has exercised rights protected under this ordinance or has in
good faith alleged violation of this ordinance, whether mistakenly or not. This is
an amendment to a criminal statute by a civil ordinance and is the exercise of a
power a home rule municipality has not been given.
Plaintiffs allege that the HWO has created an exception to NMSA 1978, Section 30-24-3 (1997)
3
not report a crime because of the HWO and then potentially be charged as an accessory for
failure to report that crime or an employee might intimidate the employer with potential HWO
repercussions to keep the employer from reporting a crime. [Id. 46-48] Finally, Plaintiffs
contend that the HWO provides for penalties greater than a petty misdemeanor as defined by
Intervenor-Defendants ask this Court to dismiss Count III for lack of ripeness, for lack of
standing, and for failing to state a claim as it does not infringe on any state statute. The Court
agrees with Intervenor-Defendants that Count III fails to state a claim. For that reason, the
A municipality which adopts a charter may exercise all legislative powers and
perform all functions not expressly denied by general law or charter. This grant
of powers shall not include the power to enact private or civil laws governing civil
relationship except as incident to the exercise of an independent municipal power,
nor shall it include the power to provide for a penalty greater than the penalty
provided for a petty misdemeanor. No tax imposed by the governing body of a
charter municipality, except a tax authorized by general law, shall become
effective until approved by a majority vote in the charter municipality.
Plaintiffs contend that the City has exceeded its municipal powers in Section 13-16-4 of the
4
condition of using paid sick time or count use of paid sick time in a way that will
lead to any adverse employment action.
The Court is unpersuaded. Nothing in the plain and express language of Section 13-16-4
amends, changes, or otherwise modifies any criminal statute enacted by the Legislature. What
the plain and express language does is prohibit an employer from, inter alia, intimidating,
agency . . . because the employee has exercised rights protected under this Ordinance or has in
good faith alleged violations of this Ordinance, whether mistakenly or not. Id. It does not
prohibit anyone from making a good faith report regarding criminal activity or from cooperating
with a criminal investigation. Plaintiffs concerns regarding what may happen when an
employer reports a crime or does not report a crime are purely speculative and unripe for any
Plaintiffs in Count III also argue that the HWO provides for penalties greater than a petty
misdemeanor as defined by Section 1-1-99 ROA 1994 in violation of the New Mexico
Constitution. [Id.] Article X, Section 6(D) of the New Mexico Constitution states that [a]
municipality which adopts a charter may exercise all legislative powers and perform all functions
not expressly denied by general law or charter. This grant of powers shall not include the power
. . . to provide for a penalty greater than the penalty provided for a petty misdemeanor. NMSA
1978, Section 31-19-1(B) (1984) contains the penalty or sentence for a petty misdemeanor:
[T]he judge shall sentence the person to be imprisoned in the county jail for a definite term not
to exceed six months or to the payment of a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or
to both such imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge. The City Code of Ordinances
5
Any person who violates any provision of this code for which another penalty is
not specifically provided shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine not exceeding
$500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or both unless a different specific
penalty is provided. Each separate violation shall constitute a separate offense
and, upon conviction, each day of violation shall constitute a separate offense.
The Court agrees with Intervenor-Defendants that Plaintiffs Count III fails to state a
claim on this basis. Section 13-16-6 of the proposed HWO states in pertinent part:
Plaintiffs are correct that Section 13-16-6 gives the City the power to impose penalties payable to
the City. However, those penalties are limited to fifty dollars per week for each separate
violation, not to exceed five hundred dollars per employee. Id. Thus, on its face, the penalty is
capped at $500.00 which is the monetary cap for a petty misdemeanor and the monetary cap
under Section 1-1-99 ROA. To the extent that the HWO permits the City or employee to bring a
civil action to recover damages it cannot violate any constitutional prohibitions regarding
criminal penalties as measured by the term petty misdemeanor. See, e.g., Denison v. Tocker,
1951-NMSC-022, 13, 55 N.M. 184, 229 P.2d 285 (A civil action is for damages if it is
brought for the compensation of the injured individual. It is for a penalty if it seeks to obtain a
sum of money for the state, an entity which has not suffered direct injury by reason of any
prohibited action. In order to obtain damages the loss must flow out of the wrong and be [its]
6
natural and proximate consequence. A penalty need have no causal connection with the wrong
inflicted. In a penal statute the penalty is inflicted by a law for its violation. (Internal quotation
marks, quoted authority, and citations omitted.)). As the Court concludes that Count III fails to
state a claim, the Court need not determine if Plaintiffs have standing to raise their contentions in
Count III.
In Count IV, Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue a declaratory judgment that the City does
not have the power to place voter-initiated voter referendums on any ballot. [Complaint p.27]
Intervenor-Defendants assert that Plaintiffs claim is without legal basis and accordingly fails to
The City is a home rule municipality that has adopted a charter. Article III, Section 3 of
that Charter permits direct legislation by voter initiative and sets forth the requirements for such
initiatives. Article X, Section 6(D) of the New Mexico Constitution states: A municipality
which adopts a charter may exercise all legislative powers and perform all functions not
expressly denied by general law or charter. The purpose of Article X, Section 6 is to provide
municipalities. Article X, Section 6(E). The state Legislature thus has provided that [t]he
charter may provide for any system or form of government that may be deemed expedient and
beneficial to the people of the municipality, including the manner of appointment or election of
its officers, the recall of the officers and the petition and referendum of any ordinance, resolution
argue that both the Constitution and Section 3-15-7 allow voter-initiated legislation and dismissal
7
Plaintiffs rely on Article XIX, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution to argue that
way so amended as to allow laws to be enacted by direct vote of the electors the laws which may
be so enacted shall be only such as might be enacted by the legislature under the provisions of
this constitution. Plaintiffs contend that the City Charter is no substitute for an Amendment to
the Constitution or for the lack of statutory authority. [Response 4, 11 (Article III, 3 of the
City Charter is not only inconsistent with the Constitution and prohibited by NMSA 1978, 3-
15-7, but it is also prohibited by Constitution Article XIX, 3 which prohibits such laws unless
Article XIX, Section 3 does not expressly prohibit voter-initiated legislation at the
municipal level. Article XIX of the New Mexico Constitution consists of sections addressing
amendment of the Constitution. Adopted in 1911, Section 3 of that article only states if the
Constitution is so amended to allow laws to be enacted by direct vote of the electors the laws
which may be so enacted shall be only such as might be enacted by the legislature under the
provisions of this constitution. Then, in 1965, the state Legislature enacted a statute allowing a
charter [to] provide for any system or form of government that may be deemed expedient and
beneficial to the people of the municipality, including the manner of appointment or election of
its officers, the recall of the officers and the petition and referendum of any ordinance, resolution
or action of the municipality. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertions, the Court does not read the
language of this statute to limit the charters scope to the manner of appointment or election of
its officers, the recall of the officers and the petition and referendum of any ordinance, resolution
or action of the municipality. Rather, the only limitation is that the system of government be
deemed expedient and beneficial to the people. The Court GRANTS the Motion.
8
D. The Court dismisses Count VI for failure to state a claim that the HWO exceeds
the Citys home rule power and territorial reach.
In Count VI, Plaintiffs assert that the HWO is invalid because it exceeds the Citys home
rule power and the territorial reach of the City because the HWOs definitions of employer and
place of business include in its scope employers outside the City and that location of buyer is
too broad. Intervenor-Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Count VI for failure to
state a claim and lack of standing. Intervenor-Defendants contend that the HWO only applies to
businesses that have a place of business within the municipal limits so Plaintiffs assertions that
the HWO improperly extends beyond the municipality fails as a matter of law. The Court agrees
with Intervenor-Defendants. As the Court determines that Count VI fails to state a claim as a
matter of law, the Court need not determine whether Plaintiffs have properly pleaded standing.
this Code or any nonprofit organization, partnership, association, corporation, or charitable trust
with a physical premises within the City of Albuquerque. EMPLOYER shall not include the
State of New Mexico or any employee thereof. Section 13-16-2 (emphasis added). Section 13-
Section 13-12-2 (emphasis added). Thus, for the HWO to apply to an employer that
employer must be one with a physical premises in the City and/or required to have a
business license or business registration from the City. Id.; Section 13-16-2. Section 13-1-5
9
states that [a]ll persons proposing to engage in business within the municipal limits of the city
shall apply for and pay a Business Registration Fee for each outlet, branch, location, or Place of
Business within the municipal limits of the city prior to engaging in business. (Emphasis
Section 13-1-2 (emphasis added). Read together the Court agrees with Intervenor-Defendants
that the coverage of the HWO is confined to those employers with a place of business or
physical premises within the municipal limits. Count VI fails to state a claim.
II. CONCLUSION
Dismiss Counts I, III, IV, and VI. Intervenor-Defendants also ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs
request for a preliminary injunction enjoining the placement of the HWO on the ballot. As the
Court dismisses all of Plaintiffs claims regarding the HWO, the Court DISMISSES as well
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was efiled and served to the following:
Gail Evans
Elizabeth Wagoner
Tim Davis
New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty
924 Park Avenue SW Suite C
Albuquerque, NM 87106
Christopher Tebo
Hessel E. Yntema IV
P.O. Box 2248
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Patrick Rogers
20 First Century Plaza Suite 725
Albuquerque, NM 87102
_Heather Garcia_______________
CV 2017-02314
11