Where the language is unambiguous, "we apply the statute as written." N.M. Real Estate Comm'n v. Barger , 2012-NMCA-081, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 1112. Where, however, a statute is ambiguous, meaning that "reasonably informed persons can understand the statute as having two or more meanings," we turn to principles of statutory construction.

"[W]here the language of the legislative act is doubtful or an adherence to the literal use of words would lead to injustice, absurdity or contradiction, the statute will be construed according to its obvious spirit or reason, even though this requires the rejection of words or the substitution of others." N.M. Real Estate Comm’n v. Barger, 2012-NMCA-081, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 1112 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, "[w]e consider all parts of the statute together, reading the statute in its entirety and construing each part in connection with every other part to produce a harmonious whole." Dep’t of Game & Fish v. Rawlings, 2019-NMCA-018, ¶ 6, 436 P.3d 741 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

"[W]here the language of the legislative act is doubtful or an adherence to the literal use of words would lead to injustice, absurdity or contradiction, the statute will be construed according to its obvious spirit or reason, even though this requires the rejection of words or the substitution of others." N.M. Real Estate Comm'n v. Barger, 2012-NMCA-081, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 1112 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, "[w]e consider all parts of the statute together, reading the statute in its entirety and construing each part in connection with every other part to produce a harmonious whole."

Interpreting the cause and contribute standard to include a SIL-though it is not in the plain language of the regulation-is reasonable and consistent with the Board's guidelines and the EPA's interpretation of the standard. See N.M. Real Estate Comm'n v. Barger, 2012-NMCA-081, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 1112 ("[W]here the language of the legislative act is doubtful or an adherence to the literal use of words would lead to injustice, absurdity or contradiction, the statute will be construed according to its obvious spirit or reason, even though this requires the rejection of words or the substitution of others."

{¶13}In its original form, Section 61-1-3.1(A) (1981) was an occurrence statute without a provision "tying the running of the limitations period to discovery of the underlying conduct." N.M. Real Est. Comm'n v. Barger, 2012-NMCA-081, ¶ 11, 284 P.3d 1112. That changed, however, when "[i]n 1993, the Legislature amended the statute to bar board action initiated later than two years after the discovery of the conduct."

"[W]here the language of the legislative act is doubtful or an adherence to the literal use of words would lead to injustice, absurdity or contradiction, the statute will be construed according to its obvious spirit or reason, even though this requires the rejection of words or the substitution of others." N.M. Real Estate Comm'n v. Barger, 2012-NMCA-081, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 1112 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

While we acknowledge that the 2019 version of the HWJTC is not controlling in this case because the statute was amended after taxpayers filed their applications for the HWJTC, we may nevertheless infer legislative intent from such an amendment. See N.M. Real Estate Comm'n v. Barger, 2012-NMCA-081, ¶ 18, 284 P.3d 1112 (explaining that courts may look to later amendments of statutes to aid in interpreting their meaning). For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Par Five hearing officer's decision overturning the Department's denial under the career path promotion analysis.

"[W]here the language of the legislative act is doubtful or an adherence to the literal use of words would lead to injustice, absurdity or contradiction, the statute will be construed according to its obvious spirit or reason, even though this requires the rejection of words or the substitution of others." N.M. Real Estate Comm'n v. Barger , 2012-NMCA-081, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 1112 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {19} The WPA provides that an employer that violates the WPA "shall" be required to pay the employee's reasonable attorney fees.

"[W]here the language of the legislative act is doubtful or an adherence to the literal use of words would lead to injustice, absurdity or contradiction, the statute will be construed according to its obvious spirit or reason, even though this requires the rejection of words or the substitution of others." N.M. Real Estate Comm’n v. Barger , 2012-NMCA-081, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 1112 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, "[w]e consider all parts of the statute together, reading the statute in its entirety and construing each part in connection with every other part to produce a harmonious whole."

"[W]here the language of the legislative act is doubtful or an adherence to the literal use of words would lead to injustice, absurdity or contradiction, the statute will be construed according to its obvious spirit or reason, even though this requires the rejection of words or the substitution of others." N.M. Real Estate Comm'n v. Barger, 2012-NMCA-081, ¶ 7, 284 P.3d 1112 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). See City of Eunice, 2014-NMCA-085, ¶ 8 ("Tax statutes, like any other statutes, are to be interpreted in accordance with the legislative intent and in a manner that will not render the statutes' application absurd, unreasonable, or unjust."