Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Grubesic

DATE TYPED 3/10/2005 HB

SHORT TITLE Time Limit for Human Rights Act Appeals

SB 174/aSPAC/aHCPAC

ANALYST Dunbar

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

NFI

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Department of Labor (DOL)

Children Youth and Families Department (CYFD)

Attorney General (AG)

New Mexico Department of Corrections (NMDC)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of HCPAC Amendment

The House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee amendment to Senate Bill 174 changes the

appeal process from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals following a judgment of the dis-

trict court.

Synopsis of SPAC Amendment

Senate Public Affairs Amendment to Senate Bill 174 includes language that provides for the in-

dividual that has filed a complaint to receive an order of nondetermination in jointly filed cases

after the federal complaint has been closed. As provided in “technical issues” below, this en-

sures the Right to Sue letter and the Order of Nondetermination are issued simultaneously.

Senate Bill 174/aSPAC/aHCPAC - Page 2

Synopsis of Original Bill

Senate Bill 174 proposes several time limit changes to two sections of the New Mexico Human

Rights Act, section 28-1-10, Grievance Procedure, and section 28-1-13, Appeal. It also clarifies

some of the language in the cited sections.

Significant Issues

In section 28-1-10(A) the Bill extends the time limit for filing complaints with the Human Rights

Division (“HRD”) to three hundred days instead of the current one hundred and eighty from the

date of the alleged act. This change parallels the statutory time limit in Title VII of the federal

Civil Rights law.

In section 28-1-10(D), the amendment removes the one hundred and eighty day provision for the

Human Rights Director to issue its order of non-determination. By eliminating this lengthy wait-

ing period, the process for filing an appeal is accelerated for complainants who want to file si-

multaneously in state and federal court.

In sections 28-1-10(J) and 28-1-13(A) the thirty-day time limits are extended to ninety days. In

28-1-10(J), the amendment extends the time limit for requesting a trial de novo in district court.

The original thirty-day limit is extended to ninety days from receipt of the notice of waiver is-

sued by the HRD Director. That notice for all intents and purposes is deemed a final order.

According to the AG this “ninety day” provision is in direct conflict with Rule 1-076(D)(2)

NMRA 2004. Similarly, the proposed amendment in section 28-1-13(A) to extend the time for

filing a notice of appeal to ninety days from the receipt of the commission’s order, a final order,

is in direct conflict with Rule 1-076(D)(1). Rule 1-076 deals with appeals from the Human

Rights Commission and states that “[a]n appeal from the Human Rights Commission shall be

taken within thirty (30) days from the date of service on the parties to the administrative pro-

ceeding of: (1) the commission’s order; or (2) the director’s or complainant’s notice of waiver of

the complainant’s right to hearing before the commission

TECHNICAL ISSUES

The Human Rights Division proposes the following language to 28-1-10(D): “shall receive an

order of nondetermination without delay after the division’s receipt of the complaint and in joint

filed cases, after the federal complaint has been closed”. This ensures that the Right to Sue letter

and the Order of Nondetermination are issued simultaneously.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

DOL points out that the statute, as currently written, the complainant receives a Right to Sue

from EEOC and then must wait a significant amount of time to receive the Human Right’s Order

of Nondetermination, which often causes the Complainant to miss the 30 day time period for ap-

peal in District Court.

WD/sb:yr