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 while at work as requested by her employer. She contended that she could not stop her contacts from calling/visiting her at work but it was concluded that Rodman’s behavior was unreasonable and caused too many issues at work. Rodman appealed.

Issue:
Whether the misconducted that preceded the termination of employment rose to the level that would warrant a denial of unemployment compensation.

Rule:
NMSA 1978, Sections 51-1-7 of the Unemployment Compensation Law.

Application:
Rodman argued that the incident leading up to her termination were acts by third parties over whom she had no control. She claimed that these acts were not willful or intentional on her part and that under her employer’s personnel policy, her employment could not have been terminated before this final incident and she therefore cannot be denied unemployment benefits. The Department however, argued that it did not matter that the last incident was an act of third parties or whether or not it was willful/intentional on the part of Rodman. They claimed that the record showed Rodman had a history of previous acts which showed she had a willful and/or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests and that the series of previous incidents altogether constitutes misconduct and that her benefits were properly denied.

Conclusion:
The decision of the District Court was affirmed.

CASE No. 2
It’s Burger Time, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Labor, 769 P.2d 88
(N.M 1989)

Facts: Lucy Apodaca was employed by It’s Burger Time. She had no prior instances of misconduct or problems with the Employer. Apodaca asked her supervisor how the store owner would react if she dyed her hair purple. She never received a response. When the owner noticed the hair, he gave Apodaca one week to decide whether she wanted to keep her hair or her job. The owner claimed that the Apodaca’s hair would adversely affect his business. Apodaca notified the owner that she would not be changing her hair color, and was subsequently terminated. She filed a claim for unemployment benefits was awarded unemployment compensation benefits by the New Mexico Employment Security Department. However this was later reversed by the District Court of Dona Ana County. Apodaca appealed.

Issue:
Whether the District Court erred in denying Apodaca benefits based on the employers personal beliefs about acceptable community standards and if that constitutes misconduct.

Rule:
Alonzo v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 689 P.2d. 286, 288 (N.M. 1984) states that termination for a one time incident that doesn’t significantly affect the employer’s business may not be used as a basis for denying benefits for misconduct.

Application:
Even though it was the owner’s burden to prove that the change in the Apodaca’s hair color significantly affected his business, the owner failed to meet that burden. There was no evidence that the color of Apodaca’s hair affected his business. Although the owner has the right to establish rules for his employees, this particular violation does not justify the denial of unemployment benefits. Because the owner could not prove that his business was affected, there wasn’t sufficient misconduct and no real reason to deny unemployment benefits.

Conclusion:
The decision was reversed and Apodaca was awarded unemployment compensation benefits.