ARTICLE
31 January 2013

Jury Awards $960,000 In First Trial Under New Mexico Whistleblower Law

PR
Proskauer Rose LLP

Contributor

The world’s leading organizations and global players choose Proskauer to represent them when they need it the most. Our top tier team of star trial attorneys, acclaimed transactional lawyers and exceptionally talented partners and associates have earned a reputation for the relentless pursuit of perfection and a dauntless pursuit of success.
On January 18, 2013, a former New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) employee prevailed in the first case to reach trial under the state’s Whistleblower Protection Act.
United States Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On January 18, 2013, a former New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) employee prevailed in the first case to reach trial under the state's Whistleblower Protection Act (NMWPA). Feliciano v. New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, et al., No. D-101-cv-2010-02008 (First Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe). A jury awarded Aaron Feliciano, a former compliance director of PRC, $355,345 in damages and approximately $250,000 in legal fees. The NMWPA provides for double damages, so Feliciano will receive a total award of approximately $960,000.

Feliciano worked as compliance director in PRC's Insurance Division. In 2010, Feliciano filed suit under the NMWPA, which provides a private cause of action for employees terminated in retaliation for efforts to expose corruption in state government. He alleged that he was fired in retaliation for voicing concerns over his supervisors' hiring of political contributors to investigate insurance cases resulting in slow, costly and ineffective investigations. PRC maintained that Feliciano was terminated due to poor job performance and a range of misconduct. Eleven out of twelve jurors sided with Feliciano, finding that he was retaliated against Feliciano for raising the foregoing concerns.

Although this case arose under a state-specific whistleblower statuteand concerned allegations against a public employer, it behooves private employers nationwide to note of this significant verdict because similar whistleblower claims are proliferating under a wide range of statutes. Employers also should appreciate that the suit was filed by a compliance officer, as employees in such positions often are tasked with addressing various aspects of whistleblower claims and often possess highly sensitive information that they may, in some cases, attempt to strategically capitalize on it by placing it on the public record through filings in litigation and testimony at trial.

www.proskauer.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More