After voluntarily transferring to a new prison facility, Manuel Lerma, a 16-year veteran corrections officer with the New Mexico Department of Corrections (DOC), was assigned to transportation duties that included operation of the sally port, a critical security feature consisting of two interlocking gates designed to prevent inmate escapes. The standard procedure, which Lerma enforced, required that one gate remain securely closed while the other was in use, creating an impenetrable airlock during prisoner transfers.
Lerma’s strict adherence to protocol brought him into conflict with his fellow transportation officers. Multiple coworkers pressured Lerma to leave both gates open simultaneously, allowing for quicker movement of staff and vehicles. The tension escalated dramatically one evening as Lerma drove home from his shift. According to his account, two DOC employees in separate vehicles deliberately boxed in Lerma’s car, forcing him to pull over into an empty lot. Lerma, “fearing for his life,” was beaten by a fellow officer while a prison supervisory lieutenant filmed the altercation using his agency-issued cell phone.
Lerma reported both incidents through official channels, noting “the persistent pushback he faced from his coworkers on the sally port issue to the supervisory transport lieutenant who, perhaps coincidentally, was later involved in the violent roadside encounter.” The assault was reported to both the prison’s security threat investigative unit director and two deputy wardens. The DOC ultimately disciplined the officers involved in the altercation, characterizing their actions as “egregious conduct.” While the Supreme Court of New Mexico decision omits this detail, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico described what followed:
“After meeting with the deputy wardens – and one day after he reported the fight – DOC reassigned Mr. Lerma from his post at the sally port to the prison’s mailroom. Mr. Lerma was given no reason for the move and felt he was ‘being punished.’ Mr. Lerma testified that following his reassignment, his compensation decreased because he was ‘very, very, limited’ in the amount of overtime he could work in the mailroom, and that his supervisors were aware that the reason he transferred to Central was to work more overtime. In addition to transferring Mr. Lerma, DOC limited where Mr. Lerma was allowed to go in the facility. The deputy warden who made the initial decision to move Mr. Lerma to the mailroom testified that he ‘wanted Mr. Lerma closer by me so I could keep an eye out for him’ following his ‘report to us that he was in a physical altercation.’”
Lerma filed a whistleblower claim under the New Mexico Whistleblower Protection Act (NMWPA). The district court’s summary judgment dismissal contained no analysis; merely a three-sentence order without citation to law or findings of fact. At the Court of Appeals, Lerma “reiterated that his disclosure of the sally port, but controversy served to further DOC’s policies in preventing prisoner escapes while Defendants again contended that Plaintiff’s disclosures ‘primarily benefited’ him personally, not the public,” depriving him of NMWPA protection. Though the court found for Lerma, it did by so by departing radically from established precedent – dropping the “public benefit requirement” that guides interpretation of statements and actions entitled to NMWPA protection. The State appealed.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded. The Supreme Court’s reversal reinstated the public benefit requirement that had been abandoned by the lower court. The Court noted that while the NMWPA’s text doesn’t explicitly mention “public benefit,” its protections for reports of “gross mismanagement,” “waste of funds,” “abuse of authority,” or “substantial danger to the public” all inherently involve matters beyond personal grievances. “The term ‘whistleblower’ has been defined as a person ‘who, believing that the public interest overrides the interest of the organization they serve, publicly blows the whistle if the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent, or harmful activity.’”
Lerma v. State, 2025 LX 57431 (N.M. 2025).