{
  "id": 715110,
  "name": "Eva M. LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION OF the NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lopez v. Employment Security Division of the New Mexico Department of Labor",
  "decision_date": "1990-11-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 18933",
  "first_page": "104",
  "last_page": "106",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "111 N.M. 104"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "802 P.2d 9"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 615",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5357751
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0615-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 N.M. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1580102
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/102/0025-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N.M. 790",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2868698
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "794",
          "parenthetical": "statute should be interpreted to mean that which legislature intended it to mean"
        },
        {
          "page": "1240",
          "parenthetical": "statute should be interpreted to mean that which legislature intended it to mean"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/90/0790-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N.M. 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1575595
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "590",
          "parenthetical": "whether ambiguity exists in statute is question of law to be decided by court"
        },
        {
          "page": "532",
          "parenthetical": "whether ambiguity exists in statute is question of law to be decided by court"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/95/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 N.M. 694",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1586425
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/101/0694-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N.M. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        706781
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/106/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N.M. 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1588624
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/100/0146-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 454,
    "char_count": 6778,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.78,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.328189834188654e-07,
      "percentile": 0.917602338978064
    },
    "sha256": "6464c9fa8e2fdd0d80f5be6f1bd3de1b600d4ce96cf495436a1f1d19e490c17b",
    "simhash": "1:11c147369bf1006b",
    "word_count": 1059
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:56:01.816679+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "MONTGOMERY and WILSON, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Eva M. LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION OF the NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSOSA, Chief Justice.\nThe district court reversed the decision of the Employment Security Division of the New Mexico Department of Labor (ESD) to disqualify Eva M. Lopez (claimant) under Section 51-1-7(A) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, NMSA 1978, Sections 51-1-1 through 51-1-55 (Repl.Pamp.1987 & Cum.Supp.1990). After a bench trial, the district court concluded ESD\u2019s hearing officer erred as a matter of law in disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits because of her termination of part-time employment. The court ordered claimant to reimburse ESD $204.00, which represented an overpayment of $17.00 per week for the twelve weeks during which claimant received benefits. We affirm.\nA recitation of the undisputed facts as found by the district court follows. Claimant worked for four and one-half years as a program director at television station KNMZ-TV until she was laid off on May 26, 1988. While still employed at KNMZTV, claimant applied for part-time work with Garduno\u2019s Restaurant in Albuquerque. Claimant worked two training shifts at Garduno\u2019s on June 1 and 2 and two shifts on June 8 and 10. On June 11, claimant left the part-time employment to devote more time to obtaining full-time employment in her chosen field of telecommunications.\nOn June 3, claimant applied for unemployment benefits listing KNMZ-TV as her employer. ESD made a favorable determination regarding the maximum benefit amount available to claimant from which she was to receive $159.00 per week, provided she continued to satisfy the conditions of eligibility each week. See \u00a7 51-1-5. Claimant also received a pamphlet entitled \u201cUnemployment Insurance Information\u201d that stated in part:\nCAN A CLAIMANT WORK PART-TIME? Although your goal is to find a full-time job, it will be to your advantage to accept part-time work. You may be eligible for unemployment insurance payments in any week which you are working less than full-time.\nFor the weeks ending June 4 and 11, claimant reported on her bi-weekly certification her earnings from Garduno\u2019s, which reduced her weekly benefit amount by $17.00 pursuant to Section 51-1-4(B)(2). For the next twelve weeks claimant was paid the full weekly benefit amount of $159.00. Subsequently, claimant became employed with a television station in Alabama and received no further unemployment benefits.\nThe district court concluded that claimant\u2019s termination of her part-time employment did not disqualify her from receiving unemployment compensation benefits, and that KNMZ-TV\u2019s account, as the base period employer, \u201cshall be relieved of only those benefits which would have been deducted had [claimant] continued her part-time employment.\u201d The court ordered claimant to reimburse ESD a total of $204.00, which represented an overpayment of $17.00 per week for twelve weeks.\nThe issue raised in this appeal is one of first impression in New Mexico. The question is whether the legislature intended the term \u201cemployment\u201d as used in Section 51-1-7(A) to refer only to employment upon which a claimant\u2019s base-period wages are determined, or to include any and all employment regardless that such work was not performed for a base-period employer.\nSection 51-1-7(A) specifies:\nAn individual shall be disqualified for, and shall not be eligible to receive, benefits:\nA. if it is determined by the department that he left his employment voluntarily without good cause in connection with his employment____ The disqualification shall continue for the duration of his unemployment____\nESD argues the legislature intended the term \u201cemployment\u201d as used in this section to include all employment. Under such an interpretation, ESD would consider claimant\u2019s part-time employment at Garduno\u2019s, and disqualify claimant for having voluntarily left that job without good cause in connection with the employment. We believe, however, that the legislature could not have intended such a result.\nOn review, the supreme court construes each part of an act in connection with every other part so as to produce a harmonious whole. See Westgate Families v. County Clerk of Inc. Los Alamos County, 100 N.M. 146, 667 P.2d 453 (1983). The supreme court looks to the object the legislature sought to accomplish and the wrong it sought to remedy. Miller v. New Mexico Dep\u2019t of Transp., 106 N.M. 253, 741 P.2d 1374 (1987). Moreover, we are mindful that statutes are to be interpreted in order to facilitate their operation and the achievement of their goals. Mutz v. Municipal Boundary Comm\u2019n, 101 N.M. 694, 688 P.2d 12 (1984).\nRegarding our Unemployment Compensation Law, the legislature expressed the state\u2019s public policy of lightening the burden for the unemployed worker and his family, who becomes unemployed through no fault of his own. See \u00a7 51-1-3. Since the statute in question fails to address the employment situation presented under these facts, we find the language ambiguous and in need of interpretation consistent with the legislature\u2019s intent. See New Mexico Bd. of Educ. v. Board of Educ. of Alamogordo Pub. School Dist. No. 1, 95 N.M. 588, 590, 624 P.2d 530, 532 (1981) (whether ambiguity exists in statute is question of law to be decided by court); State ex rel. Newsome v. Alarid, 90 N.M. 790, 794, 568 P.2d 1236, 1240 (1977) (statute should be interpreted to mean that which legislature intended it to mean).\nSection 51-1-4 describes how benefits shall be paid based upon base-period wages earned during employment by a base-period employer. Because the determination of benefits rests upon a claimant\u2019s base-period employment, the term \u201cemployment\u201d as used in the disqualification section logically can refer only to employment during which base-period wages were earned. Here, it is undisputed that the television station was claimant\u2019s base-period employer. The adoption of ESD\u2019s interpretation would result in an unjust and unreasonable application of the Act. See City of Las Cruces v. Garcia, 102 N.M. 25, 690 P.2d 1019 (1984). Enactments of the legislature are to be interpreted to accord with common sense and reason. Westland Dev. Co. v. Saavedra, 80 N.M. 615, 459 P.2d 141 (1969). We believe the result reached in this case reasonably reflects the legislature\u2019s intent. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in its entirety.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nMONTGOMERY and WILSON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SOSA, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hal Stratton, Atty. Gen. and D. Sandi Gilley, Sp. Asst., Atty. Gen., Albuquerque, for respondent-appellant.",
      "Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Charles E. Stuckey, Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "802 P.2d 9\nEva M. LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION OF the NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent-Appellant.\nNo. 18933.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nNov. 26, 1990.\nRehearing Denied Jan. 3, 1991.\nHal Stratton, Atty. Gen. and D. Sandi Gilley, Sp. Asst., Atty. Gen., Albuquerque, for respondent-appellant.\nRodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Charles E. Stuckey, Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0104-01",
  "first_page_order": 138,
  "last_page_order": 140
}