contemplates that a party may sue either the school district or the district’s board. Although a state and its political subdivisions are generally immune from liability in civil suits that private parties bring, see, e.g., Pub. Emps. Retirement Ass’n of N.M. v. Clearlend Sec., No. CIV 11-0931 JB/WDS, 2012 WL 2574819, at * 19 (D.N.M. June 29, 2012) (“The federal courts have broadly construed the Eleventh Amendment to render states immune from suits that private parties bring in federal court.”)(citing Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996)), the State of New Mexico has waived its sovereign immunity in these suits for limited purposes, such as particular tort suits, see C.H. v. Los Lunas Sch. Bd. of Educ., 852 F.Supp.2d at 1351 (<HOLDING>)(citing N.M.S.A.1978, § 41-4-2(A)). In the
holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy holding that the legislature has in clear and unambiguous language waived sovereign immunity against elected public officials and governmental entities defined by the act to be employers recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public recognizing that the legislature sets public policy to be enforced by the courts in the absence of constitutional infirmity recognizing that the new mexico legislature declared that new mexico public policy rendered governmental entities and public employees liable only within the nmtcas limitations and in accordance with the principles established in that act