is permissive.” Based on this canon of statutory construction, the grievance procedure in the Act appears to be permissive and not mandatory. Wal-Mart’s argument that the Act was meant to provide an exclusive remedy would be stronger if, for example, Section 28-1-10 stated, instead of the language quoted above, that “any person seeking to redress a violation of any of the rights guaranteed by this Act shall file an action under this Act pursuant to the administrative procedures it provides.” Or the New Mexico Legislature could have said something like: “No person who claims to be a victim of a violation of any of the rights guaranteed by this Act may pursue a remedy except as provided in this Act.” Cf. Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 19-21, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 1472, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (<HOLDING>). It is not uncommon for our legislature to
holding that there is no enforceable private right where the statute itself creates a remedial scheme that is sufficiently comprehensive  to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of suits under  1983 holding that remedial scheme afforded by federal tort claims act was not exclusive absent explicit congressional declaration that it was holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act  against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract holding that equitable considerations did not toll the statute of limitations under the tort claims act where plaintiffs conduct was not in strict compliance with congressional waiver of immunity holding that waiver of sovereign immunity under federal tort claims act for intentional acts committed by federal law enforcement was not limited to investigative activities