Documents make public the specific allegations of a suit filed in October, in First Judicial District Court, against Los Alamos County by a procurement department employee under the Fair Pay for Women Act (FPWA).

The documents include the findings of the Human Rights Bureau (HRB) of the Department of Workforce Solutions Labor Solutions Division.

Lillie Martinez, a buyer/planner for the County, originally filed a charge of discrimination with the HRB in July 2016, alleging that she had been employed by the County for almost 16 years and had learned through a public website that she was being paid less than her “male, Anglo counterpart”. She alleged they had identical job descriptions and that she can perform the same duties, but that he is being paid $68,800 and she is being paid $55,7000 per year.

Martinez alleged she spoke to her supervisor, Carmela Salazar, in June 2016 about the disparity and that Salazar took her concern to their manager, Annalisa Miranda. She alleged Miranda stated that her supervisor Joe D’Anna told her Human Resources may have given the male employee a 27.67 percent raise and Martinez received a 1.67 percent raise even though their ratings were the same.

Martinez charged that she was discriminated against because of her sex and national origin, in violation of the Civil Rights Act, the New Mexico Human Rights Act (HRA) and the Fair Pay for Women Act.

A letter dated March 31, 2017 from the HRB to Martinez indicates that the County denied her allegations and had indicated that the pay difference was due to an annual salary adjustment intended to correct deficiencies between equally-situated employees and was a legitimate business action.

The HRB letter said the County reported that Martinez was hired in 2000 as a senior office specialist and promoted to a contract specialist in 2004 and to a buyer/planner in March 2012, giving her 4.5 years of experience in buyer/planner positions and slightly over 11 years of experience in procurement. It said the County claimed her male colleague had more than 30 years of experience before he was hired in 2005, that he had worked as a materials buyer from 2004 to 2012 and a buyer/planner since then, giving him a total of 34 years in procurement.

HRB said the County alignment increase came about because of a new compensation administration implemented by the County Council in July 2015, which involved placing employees in a new 40-step plan that included progression through the salary range primarily based on individual annual performance ratings and provides for market adjustments to be made. 

Martinez’s male colleague was found to be “22 steps below where he should have been placed as a new-hire” or at 95.5 percent of market rate and “in need of a salary correction to reach the market alignment”. His pay was therefore adjusted to reflect his 30-plus years of experience. Martinez was allegedly found to be only two steps below so “no adjustment was made but one could be if future budgets allow”.

The HRB letter stated that the County indicated that more women than men received adjustments and more Hispanics than Anglos. It also refers to allegations by Martinez of differences in performance evaluations, college credit hours, experience and job duties. 

The HRB letter informed Martinez that an HRB investigator interviewed all her witnesses and that all of them stated that she performs at a higher level than her colleague and has more relevant experience and job knowledge than he has. It told her witnesses stated that her male colleague performs work that is less complex than she does and that he is given preferential treatment by Miranda compared to how Martinez is treated.

“Some witnesses said it appears that Ms. Miranda though Hispanic herself is harsher on Hispanic employees than she is on Anglos,” the HRB letter said.

“The (County’s) claim that as part of the 2015 alignment it affected specific step increases based on the employee’s performance ratings may represent a legitimate ‘merit system’ exception to the expectation of equal pay, although it is not clear whether there may be some flexibility even within that system and the evaluations themselves may be subject to discriminatory input,” the letter said.

The HRB letter added that the (County’s) assertion that it implemented the alignment increase to account for historical inequities, years of experience in prior jobs and expected placement as a new employee does not state a legitimate exception for the requirement for equal pay under FPWA.

“There is also sufficient evidence to infer intentional discrimination based on sex and national origin. The (County’s) proffered reasons for the large pay increase and higher compensation rate provided to (the male colleague) appears to be without evidentiary support. Evidence supports a finding that the (County’s) proffered reasons for lower performance evaluations and lower compensation are a pretext for discrimination,” the letter states.

The County has asked the Court to dismiss the case claiming Martinez failed to timely file a claim within 90 days against the County after the HRB letter was received and that she filed the case under the FPWA in October when she no longer had remedies under the HRA. The County also alleged the suit, which was filed in Rio Arriba County, was not filed in the county where the alleged acts occurred.

Martinez claims the County’s allegation that the procedures of HRA control the case is “nonsensical” and that FPWA permits her to pursue her case under FPWA or HRA or both. 

She claims the option of pursuing the FPWA claim in her suit as and where it was filed arises from a state statute, which says an action under FPWA shall be brought no later than two years from the last date of the employee’s employment and without the person exhausting all state administrative remedies. Martinez also maintains that under FPWA the suit can be filed in Rio Arriba County because she lives there.

The County claims Martinez can’t move interchangeably between the requirements of the HRA and the FPWA, that she invoked the HRA processes until it became clear she had missed the deadline to file suit under HRA and that now “seeks to invoke a different set of deadlines”. 

Assistant County Attorney Kevin Powers said Wednesday afternoon that the County does not comment on pending litigation. 

Martinez is represented by attorney Timothy White and the County is represented by Ortiz and Zamora Law Offices. 

A scheduling conference for the case has been set for Monday in Judge Francis Mathew’s courtroom in Santa Fe.