A federal judge in New Mexico has granted a procedural victory to Parnall Law Firm LLC in a high-profile employment bias lawsuit filed by a former legal assistant, but key claims alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination will still proceed to trial. The decision highlights important legal standards for exhaustion of administrative remedies and demonstrates the challenges employers and employees face in discrimination litigation under federal and state law.
Background: Allegations of Sex and Pregnancy Bias
The case,
Romero-Valdez v. Parnall Law Firm, LLC, stems from employment actions taken by Parnall, a personal injury firm based in New Mexico, against Dominique Romero-Valdez, a former legal assistant. Romero-Valdez alleges that she was subjected to discriminatory treatment because of her sex and pregnancy during her employment and that the firm’s actions culminated in an unlawful termination.
According to court filings, Romero-Valdez notified her supervisors of her pregnancy in late 2022 and early 2023. She later filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico asserting multiple claims, including violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New Mexico Human Rights Act. These claims allege that Parnall’s conduct was discriminatory and retaliatory in nature.
Procedural Ruling: Administrative Remedies
In its December 2025 opinion, the federal court agreed with Parnall that one aspect of Romero-Valdez’s claim should be dismissed because she failed to properly exhaust her administrative remedies before filing her lawsuit. Specifically, the court found that Romero-Valdez did not fully pursue administrative channels with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the appropriate state agency regarding certain contractual issues connected to her separation agreement, which allegedly interfered with her rights.
Under federal law, plaintiffs alleging employment discrimination generally must first file a charge with the EEOC and obtain a right-to-sue letter before bringing most claims in federal court. This requirement is intended to give agencies a chance to investigate and potentially resolve claims before litigation. Romero-Valdez’s failure to do so with respect to the separation agreement issue meant that the court could not consider that specific claim on its merits.
Claims That Survive Summary Judgment
Despite this partial dismissal, the court refused to grant summary judgment to either side on the central allegations of pregnancy discrimination and related claims. Both Romero-Valdez and Parnall asked the judge to decide these issues without the need for a full trial, but the court concluded that there remain genuine disputes of material fact that a jury must resolve.
For example, Romero-Valdez contends that Parnall failed to accommodate her pregnancy and treated her differently from other employees, which she says amounts to unlawful discrimination under Title VII’s Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA, as enforced by the EEOC, explicitly prohibits discrimination “because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” and requires that workers affected by pregnancy be treated the same as others with similar ability or inability to work.
Parnall, by contrast, argues that Romero-Valdez’s performance issues, not her pregnancy, were the reasons for any adverse actions. The firm maintains that her termination was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory grounds and that there is no evidence of bias.
Implied Contract and Good Faith Claims
The lawsuit also included claims related to an implied employment contract and an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Romero-Valdez alleges that Parnall’s employee handbook and workplace practices created an implied promise that she would be treated fairly and that her termination would be conducted honestly and compassionately.
Parnall countered that the handbook clearly stated that employees are at-will, meaning the
firm could terminate employment at any time for any legal reason, and therefore no implied contract existed. The firm also argued that New Mexico law does not generally recognize implied contracts based on a handbook when at-will status is explicitly stated.
The court’s recent order addressed these arguments in part, granting summary judgment to Parnall on some implied contract theories while leaving other aspects for trial due to conflicting evidence and reasonable inferences that might support Romero-Valdez’s position.
Implications for Employers and Employees
This ruling illustrates the importance of administrative exhaustion in discrimination cases and highlights how courts analyze alleged
discriminatory treatment based on pregnancy and sex. Employers must be diligent in documenting performance issues and ensuring
compliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, to defend against such claims effectively.
At the same time, employees alleging discrimination should ensure that they pursue all necessary administrative steps and maintain detailed records of any actions they believe reflect biased treatment. Expert legal advisors often recommend timely EEOC filings and thorough
documentation of workplace interactions in discrimination disputes.
Next Steps in the Litigation
With key claims heading to trial, both parties are likely preparing for a jury or bench trial where evidence and testimony will play a crucial role. If Romero-Valdez succeeds in proving discriminatory treatment, she could be entitled to remedies including back pay, reinstatement, or compensatory damages. Parnall, for its part, will continue to defend its practices as lawful and non-discriminatory.
The case is a reminder that employment discrimination litigation often turns on nuanced
legal questions and factual disputes that courts are reluctant to resolve without full examinations of evidence at trial.
Conclusion
While a federal court in New Mexico has narrowed parts of a legal assistant’s sex and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit, key allegations remain unresolved and poised for trial. The case underscores the complex interplay between administrative requirements, discrimination law, and employment contracts in the U.S. legal system. Employers and employees alike should closely study developments in this matter as it progresses through the courts.
Looking to take the next step in your legal career? Explore thousands of verified attorney jobs and law firm opportunities nationwide on
LawCrossing. Find roles that match your experience, practice area, and career goals—start your search today.
