{
  "id": 2837265,
  "name": "Carolyn GARZA, Christine Ruiz, and Martha Chavez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED CHILD CARE, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Garza v. United Child Care, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 1659",
  "first_page": "30",
  "last_page": "31",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 N.M. 30"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "536 P.2d 1086"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5356210
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 Cal.Rptr. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Cal.App.3d 695",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        4391163
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal-app-3d/24/0695-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 Minn. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        331529
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/294/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. W.2d 594",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10758278
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nw2d/203/0594-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 A.L.R. 646",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 So.2d 909",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9869068
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/176/0909-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Wis. 2d 336",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        8669830
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis-2d/54/0336-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 Ala. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        2589225
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/281/0264-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 3387,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.796,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7398756031731125e-07,
      "percentile": 0.706864377035109
    },
    "sha256": "dbe14b87e4a804456f50c830a37efc5433798ec42ab995a4c0e5dbf2f13fcb91",
    "simhash": "1:b7eaaf2074ac97b2",
    "word_count": 510
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:46.516747+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Carolyn GARZA, Christine Ruiz, and Martha Chavez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED CHILD CARE, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nPlaintiffs recovered one month\u2019s net wages for wrongful discharge from employment and appeal. We affirm.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 complaint sought reinstatement with recovery of salaries from the date of wrongful discharge until the date of reinstatement.\nAfter trial, plaintiffs requested findings of fact and conclusions of law centered around plaintiffs\u2019 readiness to return to employment together with reinstatement and back pay.\nThe trial court did not determine whether plaintiffs were entitled to reinstatement, but this issue was not raised on appeal. The trial court found that plaintiffs were permanent employees and were subject to discharge only for cause; that plaintiffs were wrongfully discharged; and that they were entitled to damages equal to one month\u2019s net pay.\nPlaintiffs\u2019 only contention on appeal is that the trial court applied an erroneous measure of damages.\nPlaintiffs misconceive the meaning of \u201cpermanent employee\u201d. They contend that as permanent employees they \u201ccould assert a continuing employment relationship which would entitle them to an award of damages commensurate with the value of the contract.\u201d\nPlaintiffs do not rely on the \u201cEmployee Handbook\u201d which they introduced in evidence, nor did they cite any authority to support their contention.\n\u201cPermanent employees\u201d as used in the \u201cEmployee Handbook\u201d simply makes a distinction between probationary and non-probationary employees. Neither does the record show what the duration of plaintiffs\u2019 terms of employment would be.\nThe rule is uniform that a contract for permanent employment, not supported by any consideration other than performance of duties and payment of wages, is a contract for an indefinite period. It is terminable at the will of either party. A discharge without cause does not constitute a breach of such contract justifying recovery of damages. United Security Life Insurance Company v. Gregory, 281 Ala. 264, 201 So.2d 853 (1967); Mathew v. American Family Mutual Ins. Company, 54 Wis. 2d 336, 195 N.W.2d 611 (1972); Russell & Axon v. Handshoe, 176 So.2d 909 (Fla.App.1965); Annot. Validity and duration of contract purporting to be for permanent employment, 135 A.L.R. 646.\nWhere a contract for permanent employment provides additional consideration, the employee can recover damages for his discharge when made without just cause. Collins v. Parsons College, 203 N. W.2d 594 (Iowa 1973); Bussard v. College of Saint Thomas, Inc., 294 Minn. 215, 200 N.W.2d 155 (1972); Drzewiecki v. H & R Block, Inc., 24 Cal.App.3d 695, 101 Cal.Rptr. 169 (Ct.App. 5th Dist.1972).\nIn the instant case, there is no evidence that any consideration, other than employment and payment of wages, was given by defendant to plaintiffs.\n\u201cThe record does not support plaintiffs\u2019 claim that the trial court\u2019s award was inadequate because of a mistaken measure of damages.\u201d Schrib v. Seidenberg, 80 N.M. 573, 458 P.2d 825 (Ct.App.1969).\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James I. Bartholomew, Clyde E. Sullivan, Albuquerque for plaintiffs-\u00e1ppellants.",
      "Michael E. Martinez, Manny M. Aragon, Aragon, Martinez, Garcia & Grass, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "536 P.2d 1086\nCarolyn GARZA, Christine Ruiz, and Martha Chavez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED CHILD CARE, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 1659.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 28, 1975.\nJames I. Bartholomew, Clyde E. Sullivan, Albuquerque for plaintiffs-\u00e1ppellants.\nMichael E. Martinez, Manny M. Aragon, Aragon, Martinez, Garcia & Grass, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0030-01",
  "first_page_order": 60,
  "last_page_order": 61
}