...Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P. 2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) Facts: Ms. Billy J. Rodman, appellee had been employed by Presbyterian Hospital as a unit secretary for nearly eight years when, on February 17, 1987, she was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a "third corrective action" notice. Before her termination restrictions had been placed on Rodman's conduct due to personal problems adversely impacting her place of work. Ms. Rodman was reprimanded in June of 1986 for receiving an inordinate number of personal telephone calls and visitors at her work station, which was disruptive to her own work and to her co-workers. The formal reprimand set forth conditions to prevent further corrective action. Ms. Rodman was to have no personal telephone calls during work hours outside of a designated break or dinnertime, in which event they were to occur in an area not visible to patients, physicians, or other department staff. When leaving the department for dinner, Ms. Rodman was to report to her immediate supervisor and was not to leave the hospital. Ms. Rodman was to make every effort to resolve the matters in her personal life that were causing problems at work. According to the testimony of her supervisor, extremely disruptive telephone calls continued. The doctors were beginning to comment on it. The staff was getting more distressed. According to her supervisor, "Again we talked about the visits, and the behavior at the desk. When the...
Words: 3905 - Pages: 16
...Legal Analysis and Writing Unit #5 Case Briefs of Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Dept. Apodaca v. New Mexico Department of Labor Employment Security Dept. Name of Student Date University Name Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P. 2d. 1316 (N.M.1988) FACTS: Billie J Rodman was terminated from her employment with Presbyterian Hospital as a Unit Secretary on February 17, 1987. Ms. Rodman was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a “third corrective action” notice. Ms. Rodman has been placed on notice and given restrictions on her conduct following issues with her personal problems adversely impacting her place of work. These issues included excessive personal phone calls and unauthorized visitors to her workstation. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: New Mexico Employment Security Department denied Ms. Rodman’s request for unemployment benefits based on her misconduct connected with work under §51-1-7(B). Ms. Rodman appealed to The Appeals Tribunal of the Department of Employment Security. The Tribunal found based on evidence that Ms. Rodman had willing disregarded her employees request to improve her conduct at work despite her contentions that she could not stop a third party from their actions. The hearing officer deemed Ms. Rodman’s actions as unreasonable and constituted misconduct. ISSUE: Did Ms. Rodman’s misconduct on February 17, 1987 which lead to her termination rise to the level of misconduct which would warrant denial...
Words: 1020 - Pages: 5
...Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Ctr., Inc. 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976) Issue: What constitutes misconduct under New Mexico Statutes Annotated; whether Mitchell committed actions which constituted misconduct under N.M. Stat. Ann.§ 59-9-5(b) (West 1953). Holding: Misconduct is not defined by the Unemployment Compensation Law within the New Mexico Statutes Annotated; however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (Wis.1941) formulated a definition which the Supreme Court of New Mexico adopted. This law states misconducted occurs with any of the following: disregards the standard of behavior, to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interest, and disregard of the employer’s duties. Such actions as inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct are not to be deemed as misconduct. (ld.) Analysis: With the definition of misconduct being adopted by the courts Mrs. Mitchell’s acts of name calling (terms such as birdbrain and “white” girl), improper attire (wearing non uniform pants), and insubordination (refusing job assignments and singing after being told to stop) on multiple occasions shows sufficient misconduct. The incidents as a whole show a consistent disregard for the center and Mrs. Mitchell’s co-workers. Decision: Therefore, as a result it is clear that Mrs. Mitchell committed various forms of misconduct over a three month period on her own accord with complete disregard...
Words: 1748 - Pages: 7
...Case Brief Rodman v. New Mexico Security Department 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988). Facts: Rodman had been employed by Presbyterian Hospital as a unit secretary for nearly eight years when, on February 17, 1987, she was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a "third corrective action" notice. Prior restrictions had been placed on Rodman's conduct due to personal problems adversely impacting upon her place of work. Issue: whether the misconduct which warranted termination from employment rose to the level of misconduct which would warrant denial of unemployment compensation under NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-7 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, NMSA 1978, Sections 51-1-1 to 51-1-54 (Repl.Pamp. 1987). Rule: New Mexico provides that an employee who is determined to have been discharged for "misconduct" is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. § 51-1-7(B) Two purposes are served by this statutory bar: first, it prevents the dissipation of funds for other workers; second, it denies benefits to those who bring about their own unemployment by conducting themselves with such callousness, and deliberate or wanton misbehavior that they have given up any reasonable expectation of receiving unemployment benefits. Given the remedial purpose of the statute, and the rule of statutory construction that its provisions are to be interpreted liberally, the statutory term "misconduct" should not be given too broad a definition. Accordingly, in adopting the...
Words: 562 - Pages: 3
...that covered her entire upper right arm, from shoulder to elbow. The tattoo was partially covered by the her uniform, with the exception of the lower portion near her elbow. The owner, Biddy Baker told Natalie that, “If the tattoo was not removed, she would be fired”. Natalie refused to have it removed. She worked the remaining of that week and was terminated that Friday for misconduct. Ms. Baker could not provide any proof of decline in sales during Natalie’s employment. However, she did provide the names of two longtime customers who requested a different table when seated in Natalie’s section the day before she was fired due to the tattoo. Natalie filed for unemployment compensation benefits in July of 2010. Her claim was denied by the New Mexico Employment Security Board on the grounds that she was terminated for “misconduct” and was ineligible for unemployment compensation. ISSUE: The issue in this case is whether Ms. Attired’s failure to remove her tattoo when instructed to do so by her employer constitutes “misconduct” as defined by N.M. Stat. Ann. §51-1-7. Also, if Ms. Baker provided proof of Natalie’s appearance having a negative effect on the business, causing sales/profits to go down. Brief Answer: Natalie’s refusal to remove the tattoo does not constitute misconduct. There was no rule or policy forbidding tattoos. Ms. Baker did not provide any proof of Natalie’s appearance causing sales to go down in the business....
Words: 1173 - Pages: 5
...Case Briefs Brandie McCormick Kaplan University Citation: Billie J. Rodman v. New Mexico Employment security department and Presbyterian Hospital, 764 NM 2d, 1316 (1988) Facts: On February 17, 1987 after 8 years of employment Billie Rodman was fired from her job for misconduct. Billie Rodman applied for unemployment benefits and was denied due to being fired for misconduct. Billie Rodman has decided to file an appeal on the decision from the district court to revoke her benefits. Due to her personal problems impacting her working abilities Billie Rodman had restrictions placed on her prior to her termination. June of 1986 Billie Rodman received numerous personal phone calls and had visitors at her work place and was reprimanded for her actions. The reprimand that she was given stated that she was no longer to have visitors or personal phone calls during work hours. The only time she would be allowed to have personal phone calls or visitors was during her scheduled brakes or lunches/dinners away from the hospital or out of patients or coworkers view. Billie Rodman was told to let her immediate supervisor know when she would be leaving her station for her dinner. Billie Rodman was told to make every effort to resolve her personal issues that were causing issues for her at work. Issue: The issue here is the misconduct that Billie Rodman was fired for really considered misconduct which would cause her to be denied her benefits under NMSA 1978, Section 51–1–7 of the Unemployment...
Words: 670 - Pages: 3
...Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Ctr.,Inc., 555 P.2d 969 (1976) Facts: On June 4, 1974 Zelma Mitchell the petitioner-appellee was fired from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. the reason being alleged misconduct. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits on the 12th of June 1974, Ms. Mitchell's actions were considered to be misconduct by a deputy of the unemployment security commission. This then disqualified Ms. Mitchell from seven weeks of benefits pursuant to 59-9-6(E) N.M.S.A 1953. Mitchell's acts were being defiant, not using the proper attire, name calling and other conduct with evidence that it was done on purpose regardless of the employer's interest. Ms. Mitchell filed an appeal on the 24th of July 1974; the referee of the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy's decision and reinstated these benefits to Mitchell on the 28th of August 1974. After this appeal, the Center appealed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal on September 13, 1974 to the whole commission pursuant to 59-9-6-(E), N.M.S.A, 1953. The commission then overruled the Appeal Tribunal and reinstated the disqualification of the seven week period. Ms. Mitchell was then granted certiorari from the District Court of Bernalillo County pursuant to 59-9-6(K), N.M.S.A 1953. Last, on the 16th of January 1976, the commission's decision was reversed by the District Court and it was ordered to reinstate Mrs. Mitchell her benefits with judgment of the District Court, the center of Appeals. Issue:...
Words: 2680 - Pages: 11
...Glackin PA205-04 Kaplan University Professor Hermes September 14, 2012 Case Brief #1: Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976). Facts: The plaintiff was terminated from the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. on June 4, 1974. On June 12, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment benefits and was denied seven weeks of benefits by the Unemployment Security Commission deputy. Mrs. Mitchell filed an appeal which in turn the Appeal Tribunal overturned the deputy’s decision. Mrs. Mitchell’s benefits were restored on August 28, 1974. On September 13, 1974 the Center didn’t agree and appealed the decision made by the Appeal Tribunal to the Commission. The Commission overruled the Appeal Tribunal and reestablished the seven week exclusion period. Mrs. Mitchell then applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision to the District Court of Bernalillo County. The District Court reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered the benefits to be reinstated. Issue: The issue is whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953. Rule: The term ‘misconduct’ is not clear in the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court found that in a previous case no statutory definition of misconduct existed. They verbalized a definition for such however the Supreme Court of New Mexico accepts the definition which they feel shows that Mrs. Mitchell’s actions fell under misconduct. Analysis:...
Words: 2045 - Pages: 9
...Olga Tikhonov Kaplan University PA205-01: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Unit 4 Assignment CASE No. 1. Billie J. Rodman v. New Mex. Emp't Sec. Dep't & Presbyterian Hosp., 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) Facts: Claimant Billie J. Rodman was employed as a secretary at Presbyterian Hospital as a secretary, was terminated and later denied unemployment benefits. She was terminated after 8 years of employment following a third corrective action. Rodman was previously placed on restrictions due to personal problems adversely affecting her work. Rodman was reprimanded for the first time for receiving too many disruptive phone calls and visitors at her work station. The phone calls and visitors were negatively impacting her work and co-workers testified she would slam charts and be abrupt with the people she worked with. The disruptive phone calls continued and she was issued a second reprimand and warned that her job was on the line. On the day of her third reprimand Rodman had gotten into an argument with her ex-boyfriend about her car and received many phone calls that day. Additionally her ex-boyfriend showed up at the hospital which resulted in a torn shirt and security being called to step and assist with the situation. After the incident the phone calls continued and it was determined that Rodman should be sent home and subsequently terminated. Claimant was denied unemployment compensation on the basis that she was unwilling to restrict her personal contacts...
Words: 782 - Pages: 4
...Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (1976) Facts: The Appelle was terminated from the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. On June 4, 1974. On June 12, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits. She was initially disqualified from seven weeks of benefits by a deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission. Mrs. Mitchell then fill an appeal, the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy’s decision. Mrs. Mitchell’s benefits were reinstated on August 28, 1974. On September 13, 1974 the center appealed the decision made by the appeal tribunal to the whole commission. The commission over ruled the Appeal Tribunal and reinstated the seven week disqualification period. Mrs. Mitchell then applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision of the commission to the District Court of Bernalillo County. The District Court reversed the commission’s decision and ordered the benefits to be reinstated. Issue: The issue is whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953 Rule: The term “misconduct” is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court found that in a prior case no statutory definition of misconduct existed, and they formulate a definition for such. The Supreme Court of New Mexico adopts that definition and hold Mrs. Mitchell’s acts constituted misconduct. Applying: Mrs. Mitchell’s insubordination, improper attire, name calling, and other conducted evidence...
Words: 1199 - Pages: 5
...Case Briefing MITCHELL v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARTAIN CENTER, INC., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M 1976) Mrs. Mitchell (appellee) was terminated on Facts: Mrs. Mitchell (appellee) was terminated on June 4, 1974 from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, INC. for alleged misconduct. June 12, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits where she was denied by the deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission; July 24 1974, Mrs. Mitchell applied for an appeal, where she then received a reinstatement of benefits on August 28 1974. On September 13 1974 appealed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal to the whole Commission pursuant to s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A..1953. The commission overruled the Appeal Tribunal an re-instated the seven week disqualification period. Mrs. Mitchell applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision of the Commission to the District Court of Bernalillo County pursuant to s 59-9-6(K), N.M.S.A. 1953. January 16, 1976, the District Court reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered it to reinstate the benefits to Mrs. Mitchell. From the Judgment of the District Court, the Center appeals. Issue: The issue of this case is whether petitioner’s actions constituted misconduct so as to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benefits. Under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953 Rule: “Misconduct” is a term that is not defined in Unemployment Compensation Law. New Mexico adopted Wisconsin's 259-60,296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) term for “misconduct”...
Words: 1292 - Pages: 6
...Unit 4 Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Kaplan University PA 205 Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, 555 NM P.2d 696 (1976) Facts: This case was a reversed decision by District Court, Bernalillo County, awarding unemployment benefits to a discharged employee. The denial of benefits was due to employee’s misconduct of insubordination, improper attire, name calling and other employee misconduct that disqualified the employee for unemployment benefits. Issue: Did the employer’s action constitute misconduct under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953? Rules: Was there misconduct by the plaintiff and was there cause for disqualification of benefits under. Analysis: After looking at the case, it had appeared that there were many misconduct write ups on Ms. Mitchell and many instances where other employees were mentioned, such as on April 2, 1974, where there was a uniform issue where Ms. Mitchell was not dressed properly. May 24, 1974 Mary Stroope, Carol Skurlock where a comment of race was brought up by Ms. Mitchell about a work assignment. May 15, 1974, and other days where Ms. Mitchell was singing and a complaint by Ms. Betty Clarke, RN. Conclusion: The district court is reversed and the decision of the Commission is reinstated. Analogizing and Distinguishing: The similarities of this case and my client case are they are both Unemployment compensation cases that involve misconduct at the work place where disrespect to co workers is involved...
Words: 1010 - Pages: 5
...Misty Owens PA 205 Professor Brian Craig Kaplan University Citation: Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Sec. Dept. 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M 1988) Facts: Employee was receiving numerous phone calls and visits periodically from her partner at her work place. This then escalated to a physical confrontation with the partner outside her work place in the lobby. She had been place on restrictions. So it was either her employee was going to fire her or not. Her employee fired her due to it being the third warning at her workplace at the time. She was denied unemployment compensation benefits. Issue: Whether the situation of her partner’s phone calls, physical confrontation in the lobby and outside her work place all along with numerous phone calls from her partner disregarding her employer’s feelings, justifies denial of unemployment benefits. Holding: Yes. An employer’s in constitutes misconduct for denial of unemployment benefits. Analysis: The evidence of misconduct was based off of District Court decisions in which justified Rodman’s actions towards the situations being that she was on limitations at her place of employment and no interest in her employer’s interest. Disposition: The decision from the District Court was to consider Rodman demonstrating a willful disregard for her employer’s interests. This caused her to have misconduct and not get her unemployment compensation benefits. Leaving the District Court decision to be affirmed. Analogizing Distinguishing:...
Words: 960 - Pages: 4
...Rodman v. N.M. Employment Sec. Dept., 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) Facts On February 17, 1987 Rodman’s employment from Presbyterian Hospital was terminated under the hospitals third corrective action policy. Rodman was reprimanded on June of 1986 for receiving an inordinate number of personal phone calls and visitors at her work station. This was not only disruptive to Rodman’s work, but her co-workers as well. Issue Did Ms. Rodman’s actions constitute misconduct under the §51-1-7, N.M.S.A. 1978 Statute? Rule Misconduct is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer had the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intentional disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. Analysis Ms. Rodman's repeated actions of phone calls, and visitors, and leaving the hospital after being notified by a supervisor that this behavior was unacceptable. This showed a complete disregard for her employer’s interests. Conclusion District court stated when considering the restrictions which had been placed upon Ms. Rodman and her previous failure to comply with those restrictions, demonstrated a willful disregard for her employer’s interests. Analogizing/Distinguishing ...
Words: 892 - Pages: 4
...length was shoulder to elbow. Biddy Baker was not pleased with the tattoo. He asked her to remove the tattoo if she wanted to keep her job. Natalie refused. After the week was finished she was given a termination notice. She applied for unemployment compensation but was terminated for “misconduct”. Questions Presented * Can Natalie Attired file a claim against New Mexico Employment Security Board (NMESB) for wrongfully withholding her unemployment compensation? * Should Natalie be able to receive unemployment compensation? Answers Briefed * No, Natalie cannot file a claim because she was technically in the wrong. She knew that the tattoo was not a good idea for the environment and was warned. * No, Natalie was terminated for “misconduct”. She also was proven to show actions of misconduct. Applicable Statute Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) adopted the meaning of “misconduct”. Discussion Natalie Attired actions can be considered misconduct according to the definition that was provided. The court defined “misconduct” in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696, 698 (1976). In which they defined it as “limited to conduct...
Words: 447 - Pages: 2
