WRONGFUL TERMINATION DEMAND LETTER

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

[ATTORNEY/FIRM LETTERHEAD]

[Firm Name]
[Address Line 1]
[City, New Mexico ZIP]
Tel: [Phone Number]
Fax: [Fax Number]
[Attorney Email]
[New Mexico State Bar Number]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [recipient_email]

[Date]

[Employer Contact Name]
[Title]
[Company Legal Name]
[Company Address]
[City, State ZIP]

Re: Wrongful Termination of [Client Full Name]
Former Position: [Job Title]
Dates of Employment: [Start Date] through [Termination Date]
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 11-408 NMRA

Dear [Mr./Ms./Mx. Last Name]:

This firm represents [Client Full Name] ("our client" or "[Mr./Ms./Mx. Client Last Name]") regarding [his/her/their] wrongful termination from employment with [Company Legal Name] ("[Company Short Name]" or "the Company") on or about [Termination Date]. Please direct all further communications regarding this matter to our office and refrain from any direct contact with our client.

We write to demand immediate action to remedy the unlawful termination of our client and to resolve this matter short of litigation. As detailed below, [Company Short Name] terminated our client in violation of New Mexico law and public policy, exposing the Company to substantial liability.

I. NEW MEXICO-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. At-Will Employment and Exceptions

New Mexico follows the employment-at-will doctrine, which allows either party to terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any reason or no reason. Kestenbaum v. Pennzoil Co., 108 N.M. 20, 766 P.2d 280 (1988).

However, New Mexico recognizes comprehensive exceptions:

1. Public Policy Exception

New Mexico strongly recognizes the public policy exception to at-will employment. Vigil v. Arzola, 102 N.M. 682, 699 P.2d 613 (Ct. App. 1983), overruled in part on other grounds by Chavez v. Manville Products Corp., 108 N.M. 643, 777 P.2d 371 (1989). An employer may not discharge an employee for reasons that violate public policy.

2. Implied Contract Exception

An implied contract may modify the at-will relationship. Lukoski v. Sandia Indian Management Co., 106 N.M. 664, 748 P.2d 507 (1988); Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., 115 N.M. 665, 857 P.2d 776 (1993).

3. Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

New Mexico recognizes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment relationships that limits termination in certain circumstances. Melnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 106 N.M. 726, 749 P.2d 1105 (1988).

B. Statute of Limitations

C. New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA)

The New Mexico Human Rights Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. Sections 28-1-1 to 28-1-15, prohibits employment discrimination based on:

• Race
• Age (40+)
• Religion
• Color
• National origin
• Ancestry
• Sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity)
• Physical or mental disability
• Serious medical condition
• Spousal affiliation
• Genetic information

The NMHRA applies to employers with 4 or more employees. N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 28-1-2(B).

D. Administrative Exhaustion Requirements

For claims under the NMHRA, a complaint must be filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Bureau (HRB) within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act. N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 28-1-10.

After the HRB issues a determination or after 180 days, the complainant may request a right-to-sue letter and file suit in district court within 90 days of receiving the letter.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Employment History and Performance

[Client Full Name] was employed by [Company Short Name] from [Start Date] through [Termination Date], a period of approximately [X years/months]. [He/She/They] most recently held the position of [Job Title] in the [Department], reporting to [Supervisor Name and Title].

Throughout [his/her/their] tenure, our client was a dedicated, high-performing employee:

• [Describe positive performance reviews, ratings, or commendations]
• [Describe any promotions, raises, or increased responsibilities]
• [Describe any awards, recognition, or special achievements]
• [Describe positive feedback from supervisors, clients, or colleagues]

At no time prior to [Date of First Adverse Action or Termination Date] did our client receive any disciplinary action or warning.

B. The Protected Activity / Triggering Event

On or about [Date], our client [describe the protected activity or triggering event]:

• [ ] Reported illegal activity, fraud, or regulatory violations to [management/regulatory agency/law enforcement]
• [ ] Refused to participate in illegal or unethical conduct
• [ ] Filed a workers' compensation claim
• [ ] Exercised rights under New Mexico wage and hour laws
• [ ] Exercised statutory rights (FMLA, jury duty, military leave, voting leave)
• [ ] Complained about discrimination or harassment under the NMHRA
• [ ] Participated in an internal or external investigation
• [ ] Reported safety violations under New Mexico OSHA
• [ ] Filed a complaint regarding wage payment under the Minimum Wage Act
• [ ] Other protected activity: [Describe]

Specifically, our client [provide detailed narrative of the protected activity].

C. Adverse Employment Actions and Termination

Following our client's protected activity, [Company Short Name] engaged in a pattern of retaliatory conduct:

Timeline of Adverse Actions:

On [Termination Date], our client was terminated purportedly for [state employer's reason]. This pretext is belied by:

1. [Explain why the stated reason is false or pretextual]
2. [Describe temporal proximity between protected activity and termination]
3. [Describe disparate treatment compared to similarly situated employees]
4. [Describe any statements or evidence of retaliatory motive]

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Retaliatory Discharge in Violation of Public Policy

Under Vigil v. Arzola, 102 N.M. 682, 699 P.2d 613 (Ct. App. 1983), and Chavez v. Manville Products Corp., 108 N.M. 643, 777 P.2d 371 (1989), New Mexico recognizes a cause of action for wrongful discharge when termination violates public policy.

New Mexico courts have identified four categories of protected activity:

1. Refusing to commit an illegal act
2. Performing a public obligation (jury duty, witness testimony)
3. Exercising a legal right or privilege
4. Reporting employer's illegal conduct (whistleblowing)

Shovelin v. Cent. N.M. Elec. Coop., Inc., 115 N.M. 293, 850 P.2d 996 (1993).

Here, our client was terminated for [describe protected activity], which constitutes [category of protection].

B. Statutory Retaliatory Discharge - N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 50-4-26

[If applicable for wage-related retaliation:] New Mexico's Retaliatory Discharge Statute, N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 50-4-26, specifically prohibits employers from discharging employees who:

• File a complaint under the Minimum Wage Act
• Testify in proceedings related to the Minimum Wage Act
• Exercise any right under the Minimum Wage Act

This statute provides specific remedies including reinstatement, back pay, and attorney's fees.

C. Implied Contract Theory

[If applicable:] Under Lukoski v. Sandia Indian Management Co., 106 N.M. 664, 748 P.2d 507 (1988), and Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., 115 N.M. 665, 857 P.2d 776 (1993), employee handbooks may create implied contracts.

New Mexico law provides that handbooks create implied contracts unless:
- The handbook contains a clear and prominent disclaimer
- The employer takes appropriate steps to make the disclaimer known to employees

The following evidence establishes an implied contract:

• Employee Handbook provisions: [Quote relevant language]
• Oral assurances: [Describe any statements by management]
• Course of dealing: [Describe Company's historical practices]

[Company Short Name] breached this implied contract by terminating our client without following stated procedures.

D. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Under Melnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 106 N.M. 726, 749 P.2d 1105 (1988), New Mexico recognizes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

[Company Short Name] breached this covenant by:

• Terminating our client to avoid paying earned [bonuses/commissions/benefits]
• Acting in bad faith by manufacturing pretextual reasons
• [Other specific acts of bad faith]

E. New Mexico Human Rights Act Violations

[If applicable:] Our client's termination violates the New Mexico Human Rights Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. Sections 28-1-1 to 28-1-15.

The NMHRA prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental disability, serious medical condition, age, or spousal affiliation. N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 28-1-7.

The NMHRA also prohibits retaliation against any person who files a charge, testifies, assists, or participates in an investigation or proceeding. N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 28-1-7(I).

Our client was subjected to unlawful [discrimination/retaliation] based on [his/her/their] [protected characteristic or protected activity].

A charge of discrimination [has been filed / will be filed] with the New Mexico Human Rights Bureau.

F. New Mexico Whistleblower Protections

New Mexico provides various whistleblower protections:

1. Public Employee Whistleblower Protection - The Whistleblower Protection Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. Sections 10-16C-1 to 10-16C-6, protects state and local government employees who report violations of law.

2. Common Law Whistleblower Protection - Private employees are protected under the public policy exception when they report illegal conduct to appropriate authorities. Shovelin v. Cent. N.M. Elec. Coop., 115 N.M. 293 (1993).

IV. DAMAGES

A. Economic Damages

1. Lost Wages (Back Pay)

2. Lost Benefits

3. Front Pay / Future Lost Earnings

B. Non-Economic Damages

Our client has suffered severe emotional distress including:

• [Describe emotional distress symptoms]
• [Describe impact on physical health]
• [Describe impact on personal relationships]

Under New Mexico law, emotional distress damages are available in wrongful discharge cases. Vigil v. Arzola, 102 N.M. at 690.

Estimated non-economic damages: $[Amount]

C. Punitive Damages

Under New Mexico law, punitive damages may be awarded upon proof of "willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, oppressive, or fraudulent" conduct. Aken v. Plains Elec. Generation & Transmission Coop., Inc., 132 N.M. 401, 49 P.3d 662 (2002).

[Company Short Name]'s conduct was willful and malicious, warranting punitive damages.

D. Attorney's Fees and Costs

Under the NMHRA, a prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable attorney's fees. N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 28-1-13(D).

E. Summary of Damages

V. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based on the foregoing, we hereby demand that [Company Short Name] pay our client the sum of $[Settlement Demand Amount] in full and final settlement of all claims.

In addition to monetary compensation, we require:

• [ ] A neutral employment reference
• [ ] Expungement of negative information from personnel file
• [ ] Agreement not to contest unemployment benefits
• [ ] Non-disparagement provisions (mutual)
• [ ] Confidentiality provisions

VI. RESPONSE DEADLINE

Please respond in writing within twenty-one (21) calendar days, no later than [Response Deadline Date].

If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we are prepared to file suit in the appropriate New Mexico District Court, including claims for:

1. Retaliatory Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
2. Breach of Implied Contract
3. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
4. Violation of New Mexico Human Rights Act
5. [Additional causes of action as applicable]

VII. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE

This letter serves as formal notice to preserve all relevant documents and electronically stored information.

VIII. CONFIDENTIALITY

This letter constitutes a confidential settlement communication protected under New Mexico Rule of Evidence 11-408.

Sincerely,

[Attorney Name]
[Title]
[Firm Name]

Enclosures:
- [ ] Authorization to Represent
- [ ] [Relevant documents]

cc: [Client Name] (via email)
File

NEW MEXICO-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES (Do Not Include in Final Letter)

Key New Mexico Cases

• Vigil v. Arzola, 102 N.M. 682, 699 P.2d 613 (Ct. App. 1983) - Public policy exception established
• Chavez v. Manville Products Corp., 108 N.M. 643, 777 P.2d 371 (1989) - Public policy scope
• Lukoski v. Sandia Indian Management Co., 106 N.M. 664, 748 P.2d 507 (1988) - Implied contract
• Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., 115 N.M. 665, 857 P.2d 776 (1993) - Handbook disclaimers
• Melnick v. State Farm, 106 N.M. 726, 749 P.2d 1105 (1988) - Good faith covenant
• Shovelin v. Cent. N.M. Elec. Coop., 115 N.M. 293, 850 P.2d 996 (1993) - Whistleblower protection

New Mexico-Specific Considerations

• [ ] NMHRA covers small employers: Applies to employers with only 4+ employees
• [ ] 300-day filing deadline: Must file with HRB within 300 days for discrimination claims
• [ ] Good faith covenant recognized: New Mexico recognizes implied covenant of good faith
• [ ] No damage caps: No statutory caps on compensatory or punitive damages
• [ ] Broad public policy exception: New Mexico has expansive public policy protections
• [ ] Spousal affiliation protection: Unique NMHRA protection against discrimination based on spouse's employer