If a respondent to a complaint filed pursuant to the Human Rights Act is not complying with an order of the commission, the attorney general or district attorney, at the request of the secretary, shall secure enforcement of the commission's order by a district court. The proceeding shall be initiated by the filing of a petition in the district court where the respondent is doing business or the alleged discriminatory practice occurred. A copy of the petition shall be served on the respondent personally or by registered mail, return receipt requested. The court may make and enter upon the proceedings an order to decree enforcement of the order of the commission. History: 1953 Comp., § 4-33-11, enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 196, § 11; 1987, ch. 342, § 23. Subject matter jurisdiction could not be raised in enforcement action. — Where the human rights commission's complaint was heard more than fifteen days following service of the complaint; at the hearing on the complaint, respondent argued that the commission had lost subject matter jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the hearing had not occurred within the required time; and respondent did not appeal the commission's adverse judgment, respondent could not challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission in an action filed by the attorney general to enforce the commission's judgment. N.M. Human Rights Comm'n v. Accurate Machine & Tool Co., Inc. , 2010-NMCA-107, 149 N.M. 119, 245 P.3d 63, cert. denied, 2010-NMCERT-010, 149 N.M. 64, 243 P.3d 1146. Forum selection and choice-of-law provisions upheld where foreign law did not conflict with New Mexico law. — Where plaintiff and defendant entered into an employment agreement that contained choice-of-law and forum selection provisions, and where, upon plaintiff's termination of employment, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, 28-1-1 to 28-1-14 NMSA 1978, claiming that defendant discriminated against her because she had cancer, and although plaintiff worked for defendant in New Mexico, the choice-of-law provision in the employment agreement required the agreement to be exclusively interpreted, governed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the state of Arizona, the district court did not err in dismissing the case, because plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing that the employment agreement was invalid, and because no conflict existed between the human rights laws that would have protected plaintiff in New Mexico and Arizona, plaintiff could have sought equivalent relief in Arizona. Tavarez v. AB Staffing Sols. , 2024-NMCA-052, cert. denied. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Pursuit of nonjudicial remedy for employment discrimination as amounting to election against judicial remedy, 103 A.L.R.5th 557.
‹ Prev All New Mexico sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.