Welch v. City of Albuquerque et al

Filing 412

ORDER by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales setting a telephonic status conference for 5/10/2018 at 10:00 AM in Las Cruces - Telephonic Hearing/Conference before District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales. REMINDER: Judge Gonzales' Meet-Me Line can only accommodate up to five (5) telephone lines, including the Courts; if the parties anticipate that they will exceed this capacity, they must contact the Court immediately so that alternative arrangements may be made. (tah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
TERYSA M. WELCH,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civ. No. 11-0700 KG/SCY

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE,
a New Mexico Municipality, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER SETTING A TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a status conference will be held by telephone on
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2018, AT 10:00 AM. The parties shall call Judge Gonzales' Meet Me
line at 505-348-2354 to be connected to the proceedings, and be prepared to discuss the following:
1.

Plaintiff’s exhibits generally as well as Plaintiff’s Ex. 90, to which Defendants
specifically object (Doc. 406);

2.

Plaintiff’s Proposed Limiting Instruction (Doc. 410); and

3.

jury instruction issues:
a.
What “other noneconomic losses” is Plaintiff seeking?
b.
What future losses is Plaintiff seeking?
c.
Do Defendants object to Plaintiff seeking damage to reputation?
d.
Is Plaintiff claiming that the transfer out of ROP was an adverse
employment action? If so, did Plaintiff administratively exhaust
that claim based on that transfer?
e.
Why would Plaintiff be barred from asserting Title VII claims
against the City solely because those claims are based on the actions
of persons who had their personal lawsuits dismissed on the grounds
of qualified immunity and failure to exhaust administrative
remedies?
f.
Should the Court include “but for” language from Univ. of Tex. Sw.
Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 360 (2013) in the New Mexico
Human Rights Act (NMHRA) retaliation jury instruction when it is
unclear whether the New Mexico Supreme Court would adopt that
language? See Ocana v. American Furniture Co.,
2004-NMSC-018, ¶ 33, 135 N.M. 539 (setting forth NMHRA

g.

retaliation elements).
Since Plaintiff did not submit an NMHRA sexual harassment
instruction, should the Court refer the jury to the Title VII sexual
harassment instruction when instructing on the NMHRA sexual
harassment claim against the City or should the Court use NMHRA
case law language found at Ulibarri v. State of N.M. Correc. Acad.,
2006-NMSC-009, ¶ 12, 139 N.M. 193? In other words, to what
extent, if any, can the Title VII and NMHRA elements jury
instruction be consolidated?

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE