...Kristen Roensch Unit 3 Assignment Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, 555 NM P.2d 696 (1976) FACTS: Zelma M. Mitchell began her employment at the Lovington Good Samaritan Center on July 4, 1972 as a nurse’s aide. After a year, she took on more responsibilities as a relief medications nurse two days a week. On 4/2/74 she was reprimanded for wearing non uniform apparel. On 85/24/74 she was angered about a responsibility switch and made a racially motivated comment, and refused to perform her duties. On 5/15/74 she was noted as being uncooperative, unethical and time consuming. On 7/4/74 she arrived to work on time and filled out her punch card for her full 8 hour day. She was questioned by her supervisor, and when this happened, she got defensive and made some statements that were controversial, even calling some of the higher up’s names. They then each apologized to one another, and seemed to smooth things over before it blew up again and she was eventually terminated from her position. When she was fired she demanded her paycheck, and was also paid for a week of vacation and an additional week which was not required because she didn’t give the appropriate notice and leave on good terms. ISSUE: The issue is whether Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct so as to disqualify her from unemployment compensation benefits. RULE: Under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953 The term “misconduct” is not defined in unemployment law for New Mexico. New Mexico adopted...
Words: 370 - Pages: 2
...Client Interview & Case Briefs; Analogizing/Distinguishing Unit 4 Assignment Kimberly 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...
Words: 2045 - Pages: 9
