When deciding rule 12(b)(6) motions, the Court generally may not consider " matters outside the pleadings." Fed. In the Motion, Sandia Labs moves the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' NMHRA and NMFPWA claims for "failure to stateĪ claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion and dismisses the Plaintiffs' NMHRA and NMFPWA claims with prejudice. The Court concludes that: (i) the federal enclave doctrine applies to state employment discrimination claims when a plaintiff works on a federal enclave, no matter where the employer makes the decisions underlying those claims (ii) the federal enclave doctrine bars the Plaintiffs' NMHRA and NMFPWA claims, because the Plaintiffs worked on the Kirtland Air Force Base, and those state statutes do not apply in that federal enclave 2 and (iii) Sandia Labs has not established that it made the employment decisions underlying the Plaintiffs' claims on Kirtland Air Force Base, so if the Court were to decide-which it does not-that the federal enclave doctrine applies only when the challenged employment decisions are made on an enclave, then the Plaintiffs' NMHRA and NMFPWA would survive the Motion. § 28–23–3(A) ("NMFPWA") and (iii) whether Sandia Labs made the employment decisions underlying those claims on the Kirtland Air Force Base. Ann § 28–1–7(A) ("NMHRA"), and the New Mexico Fair Pay for Women Act, N.M. Garcia's, and Sue Phelps' claims against Defendant Sandia Corporation ("Sandia Labs") under the New Mexico Human Rights Act, N.M. The primary issues are: (i) whether the federal enclave doctrine applies to state-law employment discrimination claims if the employer makes allegedly discriminatory decisions off the enclave (ii) whether the federal enclave doctrine bars Plaintiffs Lisa A. The Court held hearings on Jand January 19, 2018. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims, filed Ma(Doc.
0 kommentar(er)
