Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (1976) Procedural History: This case began with the Unemployment Security Commission, was seen at appellate levels, then seen at the District Court level, and now it’s at supreme court of Wisconsin. Attempting to receive the denied seven weeks of unemployment benefits. At District court level it was decided that the unemployment benefits be reinstated. Appellant Center is now appealing this under misconduct under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953. Facts: Mitchell, a full time nurse’s aide and a part-time relief medications nurse for the Center in Lovington, publicly name-called the Director of the Center, Smith, and the Director of Nurses, Stroope. There were previous misconducts such as insubordination, improper attire and previous name-calling incidents. Rule: The Wisconsin Supreme Court found no statutory definition of misconduct in the Unemployment Compensation Law in a prior case and then adopted the following definition for misconduct: is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has 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 and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed ‘misconduct’ within the meaning of the statute.

Issue: Whether Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953 and whether her prior acts of misconduct should or should not be considered in conjunction to support a “last straw” doctrine. Holding (conclusion): Yes. The Appeller’s argument that the “last straw” doctrine should not be used was rejected. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s decision and reinstated that of the Unemployment Security Commission. Analysis: Separate incidents may not be sufficient to constitute as misconduct but several actions may prove a willful disregard of the interest of an employer may be considered behaviors of misconduct.