Huffman & Monagle, LLCHuffman & Monagle, LLC2026-07-17T19:50:18Zhttps://www.hwm.law/feed/atom/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/sites/1204437/2024/07/cropped-HMHW-logo-mark-512px-2-32x32.pngOn Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC<![CDATA[How to Document Workplace Retaliation: A Practical Guide for New Mexico Whistleblower]]>https://www.hwm.law/?p=472092026-07-17T19:50:18Z2026-07-17T19:50:18ZSpeaking up about wrongdoing at work takes courage. If your employer punished you for it, you may feel isolated and unsure of your next step. Careful documentation can protect your rights and strengthen any claim you choose to pursue.
Start with your protected activity
A retaliation claim usually begins with proof that you did something the law protects. If you work for a state or local agency, the New Mexico Whistleblower Protection Act may shield you from being fired, demoted or threatened for reporting unlawful acts. Your disclosure must serve the public interest and not just a routine personnel dispute.Write down the exact date you reported the problem. Save copies of any complaint emails to a personal device right away. Courts often look at timing, so this date can anchor your entire case.
Track every adverse action
Retaliation is not always a sudden firing. It can appear in smaller ways. Watch for negative changes such as:
Demotion or pay cuts: A sudden drop in rank, hours or wages.
Exclusion: Being left out of meetings, projects or training.
Negative reviews: Evaluations that conflict with your past record.
Increased scrutiny: Micromanagement or new hostility from a supervisor.
Each of these actions could support a claim if it followed your report closely in time.
Keep a private, factual log
Record every incident in a personal journal or a password-protected file. Never store this documentation on company systems or devices. For each event, note the date, the specific location and the individuals involved. Write down exactly what was said and identify any witnesses.Limit your entries to objective facts rather than opinions. A neutral, detailed record tends to carry more evidentiary weight than emotional descriptions. It also preserves your accuracy when recalling events months later.
Why a strong record matters
Your documentation should connect three things: your protected report, the adverse actions and a clear timeline between them. That connection is often the hardest part of a retaliation claim to prove. A thorough record can make the difference between a dismissed complaint and a successful one. If your situation becomes contested or more complicated, an attorney can help you understand your options.]]>On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC<![CDATA[New Mexico Wrongful Death Statute: Who Can File, What Must Be Proven, and What Damages Are Available]]>https://www.hwm.law/?p=472102026-07-16T16:17:09Z2026-07-16T16:17:09ZLosing a loved one to someone else's carelessness leaves you with grief and unanswered questions. You may also face funeral costs, medical bills and lost income. New Mexico law gives families a path to seek compensation after a preventable death.
Who can file a claim
Under the New Mexico Wrongful Death Act, only a court-appointed personal representative may file the lawsuit. This person acts on behalf of the estate, not in a personal capacity. Any compensation typically goes to survivors in a set order. A spouse and children usually come first, followed by parents and siblings. The claim generally must be filed within three years of the death.
What you must prove
A wrongful death claim generally rests on four legal elements. You must establish that the defendant owed your loved one a duty of care. You must then demonstrate that the defendant's conduct fell below that standard. Finally, you must prove the breach directly caused the death and produced compensable losses.
What damages may be available
New Mexico law may allow compensation for several kinds of losses. Here’s what you can assess:
Economic damages: Final medical bills, funeral expenses and lost financial support.
Non-economic damages: Grief, emotional distress and loss of companionship.
Pain and suffering: Compensation for what your loved one experienced before death.
Punitive damages: Possible when the conduct was willful, reckless or malicious.
Courts may weigh medical records, financial documents and expert testimony when valuing these losses.
Special rules for government cases
Different rules can apply when a public employee or entity caused the death. TheNew Mexico Tort Claims Act requires written notice of the claim within six months. Missing that deadline could end your right to sue. The act also caps damages and bars punitive awards against government entities.
Protecting your family's right to recover
A wrongful death claim begins with a court-appointed representative, depends on proof of fault and must meet strict deadlines. Understanding how wrongful death claims work early can help you preserve evidence and protect your options. If your case involves a government entity or disputed fault, an attorney's input may help.]]>On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC<![CDATA[Report clergy abuse in New Mexico: Find justice through a lawsuit]]>https://www.hwm.law/?p=472082026-07-08T16:00:06Z2026-07-08T16:00:06ZHow a civil suit can provide survivors with closure
A civil lawsuit is a private claim filed in court by a survivor against an individual abuser or an institution, such as a church diocese, that failed to protect them. It shines a light on systemic failures and institutional policies that ignored clear warning signs, hid internal complaints or quietly transferred predatory priests to entirely new parishes. While this applies to various forms of clergy abuse, it's most commonly used in cases involving sexual abuse.
Why not a criminal case?
A civil lawsuit is different from a criminal prosecution. It puts control of the case directly back in the survivor's hands. Through it, you can expose institutional secrets and pursue financial compensation, even if criminal statutes of limitations ran out years ago. Unlike a criminal case, which relies on state prosecutors to prove a crime beyond a shadow of a doubt, a civil suit has a much lower bar.
You only need to show that the abuse and the church's failures were more likely true than not. For example, a civil claim can succeed if the evidence shows a Catholic diocese or parish leadership most likely knew a priest was a danger to minors but failed to remove him from the community.
How to report clergy sexual abuse in New Mexico
If you're prepared to document what happened to you or a loved one, or if you suspect ongoing misconduct at a church or diocese, the first step is reporting the actions to the appropriate authorities. You don't have to notify the church first. New Mexico law requires independent investigations into institutional abuse. Survivors or their family members can start this process through several direct channels:
Contact law enforcement: Call 911 for immediate dangers or reach out to the non-emergency line of the local police department or sheriff's office where the incident took place.
Notify child protective services: If the abuse involves a minor, call the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) 24/7 hotline at 1-855-333-SAFE (7233) or dial #SAFE from a mobile phone.
Reach out to the attorney general: The New Mexico Office of the Attorney General has dedicated victim advocates who handle reports involving clergy and church officials at (505) 717-3512.
You don't have to follow these steps in order or contact all three agencies. You can report to just one, depending on your situation. For example, if the abuse involved a minor, calling CYFD may be your priority. If you're unsure where to start, law enforcement or the attorney general's office can guide you to the right resources.
Speaking out about abuse
Taking these steps creates a formal paper trail through independent state investigators. Once you've notified the appropriate authorities, consider talking to an attorney. Legal representation can help protect your rights and make sure your voice is heard throughout the process.]]>On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC<![CDATA[Excessive force vs. reasonable force: How New Mexico courts draw the line]]>https://www.hwm.law/?p=472052026-07-06T13:58:06Z2026-07-06T13:43:26ZPolice officers sometimes need to use force to protect themselves or others. Even so, the law places limits on how much force they may use. If you believe an officer used more force than the situation required, you may wonder how a court decides where the legal line falls. In New Mexico, courts carefully review the facts of each encounter to determine whether an officer's actions remained reasonable or may have violated your constitutional rights.
How do courts decide if force was reasonable?
New Mexico courts generally follow the standard of the U.S. Supreme Court established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, courts often evaluate police force from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene rather than with the benefit of hindsight. Judges also consider the "totality of the circumstances," meaning they look at all relevant facts together instead of focusing on a single detail.Some of the factors courts may consider include:
The seriousness of the suspected crime.
The presence of an immediate threat.
Your level of resistance or any attempt to flee.
The amount of force used compared to the situation.
Even when an officer had legal authority to use force, a court may still consider whether the level of force matched the circumstances.
What evidence may support an excessive force claim?
Strong evidence may help explain what happened during the encounter. In many cases, several pieces of evidence work together to create a clearer picture of the events.Evidence may include:
Body camera or dash camera footage.
Photos of injuries or property damage.
Medical records documenting your injuries.
Witness statements from people who saw the incident.
Police reports and dispatch records.
The quality and consistency of this evidence may influence how a court views the facts and the credibility of each side.
How does the Fourth Amendment apply to excessive force cases?
The Fourth Amendment and federal law protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. As a result, courts often rely on this constitutional protection when reviewing claims that an officer used excessive force during an arrest, traffic stop or other law enforcement encounter.The court may examine the specific facts of the incident to determine whether the amount of force remained reasonable under the circumstances. Because every encounter differs, the outcome often depends on the evidence presented and the facts surrounding the event.
Why the details of the encounter matter
No two police encounters are exactly alike, so courts generally review the specific facts of each case before reaching a decision. The circumstances surrounding the encounter often shape how judges determine whether the force used remained reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and whether a potential civil rights violation may have occurred.]]>by Huffman & Monagle, LLC<![CDATA[New Mexico Supreme Court: Public Schools are “Public Accommodations” under the NMHRA]]>https://www.hwm.law/?p=467302025-09-16T12:00:31Z2025-01-23T17:09:04ZJohnson v. Bd. of Educ. for Albuquerque Pub. Schs., S-1-SC-39961 (2025), the New Mexico Supreme Court has held that public schools are “public accommodations” for purposes of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and that students in public schools are entitled to the protections that the NMHRA provides against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other protected classes listed in the statute.
In reaching its holding, the Court utilized a “plain-meaning” interpretive approach to the statutory language of the NMHRA, relying on Black’s Law Dictionary definitions of terms like “institution,” “school,” and “college” to show that public schools are “establishments that provide or offer their services to the public” – the definition of a “public accommodation” under the NMHRA. In reaching its holding, the Court also overruled a contrary holding in Human Rights Commission of New Mexico v. Board of Regents of University of New Mexico College of Nursing, 1981-NMSC-026, 624 P.2d 518, noting that the Regents decision relied on an unduly narrow reading of the NMHRA and took a blinkered approach to the statute’s anti-discriminatory purposes.
In noting the relative dearth of remedial venues for students facing discrimination in public school settings, the Court stated that a continued adherence to the Regents rule “would continue to perpetuate historic inequities.” Johnson at ¶ 24. In concluding its opinion, the Court stated that “[f]inding that educational institutions are public accommodations under the NMHRA would be the most logical way to provide a remedy for discrimination by educational institutions, because no remedy is otherwise expressly provided in New Mexico.” Id. at ¶ 28.
In an era where atavistic forces seek to reinvigorate a culture of discrimination in public accommodations, the New Mexico Supreme Court has provided a powerful remedial bulwark to our state’s students – and a powerful rebuke to those who would attack our state’s students for the offense of being who they are.]]>On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC<![CDATA[HM Contributes Law Review Article to Special Issue on NM Civil Rights Act]]>https://www.hwm.law/?p=466502025-11-13T08:12:26Z2024-05-22T06:00:00ZA New Jurisprudence of Constitutional Duty: Moving Beyond DeShaney Through the NMCRA]]>On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC<![CDATA[4.30.2024 Press Release: HM Lawsuit Highlights Crisis of Inmate Overdose Deaths at MDC]]>https://www.hwm.law/?p=466472025-11-13T08:41:51Z2024-04-30T06:00:00ZAlbuquerque, New Mexico –
Sandra Lente, the personal representative of the estate of her daughter April Peterson, represented by Huffman & Monagle, LLC, has filed a lawsuit against the Board of CountyCommissioners for the County of Bernalillo. The lawsuit alleges severe negligence and violation of civil rights that led to the tragic and preventable death of Ms. Peterson in the early morning hours of June 21, 2023.
Ms. Peterson, who was detained at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) for approximately 26 hours, died under questionable circumstances that have raised serious concerns regarding the operations and monitoring protocols at the facility. The complaint highlights that Ms. Peterson was placed in a detoxification pod within the facility to be monitored for withdrawal symptoms but was found unresponsive after a series of policy violations by a corrections officer. Allegations include this officer’s inappropriate use of internet resources and failure to perform required welfare checks, all during his shift when Ms. Peterson needed critical oversight.
“We are seeing a disturbing pattern of MDC corrections officers watching YouTube and playing video games instead of watching the people in their custody,” an attorney forMs. Peterson’s estate. “These are human beings, and many of them are in a medically precarious state. Failing to keep a close eye on these individuals when they are detoxing is inexcusable.” The lawsuit claims breaches of duty by the detention center’s staff, specifically pointing to the neglect in performing mandatory welfare checks and properly monitoring the inmates. Moreover, the lawsuit details the improper actions and inactions leading up to Ms. Peterson’s death, including the failure to utilize life-saving measures such as Narcan and a functional Automated External Defibrillator (AED), potentially contributing to her untimely demise. It further accuses the facility of negligence in controlling the inflow of illegal substances and maintaining essential life-saving medical equipment.
“Ms. Peterson’s death is one of many detox/overdose deaths at MDC in recent years,” said Levi Monagle, another attorney for the Estate. “All indications are that inmates are obtaining drugs within the facility, and are overdosing out of desperation to soothe agonizing withdrawal symptoms. It is an incredibly tragic situation.”
The lawsuit seeks justice and accountability for the loss of Ms. Peterson, emphasizing the urgent need for systemic changes within the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center to ensure the safety and rights of all individuals in custody. The legal action aims not only to address the specific failures in April Peterson’s case but also to prompt an overhaul of policies and practices to prevent future tragedies.
The family and legal team request that the community respect their privacy during this challenging time and will provide updates as the case progresses.
View the official complaint here.For further context or comment, please contact:
Levi Monagle – [nap_phone id="LOCAL-CT-NUMBER-1"]]]>On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC<![CDATA[4.17.2024 Press Release: Whistleblowers Protection Lawsuit by APD Academy Officers Accuses APD Command Staff of Nepotism and Retaliation]]>https://www.hwm.law/?p=466442024-08-26T03:52:18Z2024-04-17T06:00:00ZAlbuquerque, New Mexico –
Seven members of the APD Academy training staff – Steve Martinez, Tillery Stahr, Lisa Neil, Shane Treadaway, Alix Emrich, James Jacoby, and Kelsey Lueckenhoff – have filed a lawsuit inthe Second Judicial District Court, alleging violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act in the form of retaliation motivated by nepotism.
The lawsuit originates from a series of events at the APD Academy in August 2023, when the seven plaintiffs reported a “Class One Violation” of “Lying/Dishonesty” by a cadet named JoshuaVega – the son of APD Commander George Vega. Plaintiffs’ allegations were investigated and substantiated by APD internal affairs investigators, and Academy Commander Joe Viers subsequently made the decision to terminate Cadet Vega from the Academy on August 17, 2023.
The decision to terminate Cadet Vega was abruptly reversed on August 18, 2023, following unusual intervention from APD Deputy Chief Michael Smathers. The lawsuit alleges that this reversal was set in motion following a call between Commander Viers and Commander Vega on the evening of August 17, 2023. On August 18, 2023, Cadet Vega was reinstated to the Academy, and the plaintiffs were removed without explanation from their tested positions at the Academy.
“Our clients’ logical deduction is that Commander Viers was pressured by the APD chain of command to reverse his disciplinary decision,” said Levi Monagle, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “They cannot think of another terminated cadet receiving direct intervention from a Deputy Chief, but they also cannot think of another instance where a terminated cadet was the son of an APD Commander.”Following their removal from the Academy, the plaintiffs sent a letter to APD Chief of Police Harold Medina on August 24, 2024. The letter (which is attached as an exhibit to the lawsuit) detailed the plaintiffs’ serious concerns with the special treatment of Cadet Vega, and expressed additional concerns that the lack of an experienced staff would compromise the training of an entire cadet class.
“The August 24 letter characterizes the handling of Cadet Vega’s misconduct as an ‘abuse of authority,” Monagle said. “Our clients did their jobs. They reported misconduct by the son of an APD commander, and they were punished for it. These sorts of situations severely erode the confidence of rank-and-file law enforcement in their chain of command, and deserve special scrutiny and criticism.”
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs received no response to their letter to Chief Medina – but were subsequently subjected to a lengthy third-party investigation for “hazing.” The lawsuit alleges that no evidence of “hazing” was discovered through this investigation, but notes that the findings of the investigation have been withheld by the City of Albuquerque.
“The City should release its investigative report to the public,” said Monagle. “Our clients have nothing to hide – the concern is that APD has something to hide, and the release of the report would quell those concerns.”
View the official complaint here.For further context or comment, please contact:
Levi A. Monagle – [nap_phone id="LOCAL-CT-NUMBER-1"]]]>On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC<![CDATA[3.15.2024 Press Release: New Lawsuit Accuses CYFD and Bair Foundation of Failing to Protect Five-Year-Old from Physical and Sexual Abuse]]>https://www.hwm.law/?p=466532024-08-26T03:52:27Z2024-03-18T06:00:00Zhere.]]>On Behalf of Huffman & Monagle, LLC<![CDATA[New Mexico Supreme Court: Avoid “And/Or” in Jury Instructions]]>https://www.hwm.law/?p=466492025-09-18T14:22:53Z2024-03-18T06:00:00Zlinguistic abomination. State v. Smith, 1947-NMSC-048, ¶¶ 7-8, 51 N.M. 328, 184 P.2d 301.
While the opinion went on to acknowledge that the use of “and/or” could at times be appropriate in complaints, responsive pleadings, and discovery, it was unequivocal in its condemnation of the term’s use in jury instructions. New Mexico practitioners would do well to heed the Court’s reminder in this regard.]]>