The pile of legal actions against New Mexico Highlands University continues to mount.

Paul Grindstaff, the institution's former vice president for advancement and university relations who also directed the NMHU Foundation, claims the state school in Las Vegas retaliated after he flagged unsafe athletic facilities and equipment to campus leaders.

His complaint, lodged Monday in U.S. District Court, asserts that Highlands regents dismissed him for speaking out and then leveled inaccurate charges in a May 27 letter to the New Mexico Office of the State Auditor. The filing states that the letter placed Grindstaff inside a broad account of fraud, misconduct, and criminal behavior.

Grindstaff requests double back pay plus interest, job reinstatement, damages for reputational harm, attorney fees, court costs, and additional relief.

Attorney Tim White, who represents Grindstaff, stated that the Whistleblower Protection Act was designed for situations like this one. He noted that Grindstaff documented safety risks harming student athletes at a public university, only to be let go weeks later without explanation and then accused of offenses contradicted by the accusers own records.

University General Counsel Doajo Hicks pushed back on several claims in the suit, especially assertions that the school retaliated by sending the auditor letter or because Grindstaff raised safety issues.

Hicks told The New Mexican that the university will not litigate the case in the press. Because the action involves personnel issues, contested facts, and contacts with oversight bodies, the school will avoid commenting on specific evidence, staff members, or ongoing reviews.

Grindstaff's case adds to a string of controversies that have shaken Highlands in recent months. In May the regents suddenly dismissed several senior administrators, including Grindstaff, and put former President Neil Woolf on paid leave before terminating him a month afterward.

Woolf has filed his own suit against the school, alleging retaliation tied to a construction project. Regents have rejected those claims yet acknowledged removing him without cause and pledged to honor his contract terms, including separation pay.

Highlands also faces a harassment and discrimination action from a former athletic director along with active investigations by the Office of the State Auditor, the state Higher Education Department, and prosecutors from the 4th Judicial District Attorney's Office and the New Mexico Department of Justice.

Grindstaff's allegations sit amid this network of claimed misconduct, lawsuits, and official inquiries. He states in the complaint that he made protected disclosures to university leaders about hazards facing student athletes, such as unsafe football helmets and track and turf conditions linked to three broken ankles, at least one ACL tear, and lower-body injuries affecting 28 of 30 women's soccer players.

Woolf and Grindstaff had advanced an $85.5 million athletic facilities plan in late 2025 that would have delivered a new track and field if approved. Instead of addressing the safety concerns, Grindstaff contends, leaders fired him and included his name in the board's critical letter to the state auditor.

The 32-page letter charged Woolf with improper hiring and procurement, financial mismanagement, and retaliation against staff, among other issues, claims Woolf's attorney has contested. The document also named Grindstaff, alleging he altered government records and gained from preferential hiring for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite his lifelong Methodist affiliation.

The New Mexican obtained the regents' letter through a public records request and reported its contents, a step the complaint calls foreseeable and damaging to Grindstaff's reputation. The filing describes the letter as an attack document rather than a compliance filing that accuses a longtime alumnus, former football player, major donor, and past volunteer officer of defrauding the institution he has supported for decades.

Hicks wrote that the university backs good-faith reports of safety, compliance, and financial matters and does not retaliate against employees who make protected disclosures. He added that the letter was sent in response to an official inquiry and as part of ongoing cooperation with oversight agencies. Personnel decisions rest on legitimate institutional factors and follow applicable law and university policy, he stated.