...Unit 3: Legal Analysis and Writing PA-205 Shannon R. Courson Kaplan University 11/28/15 ZELMA M. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC., Appellee. No. 10847. SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 89 NM 575,555 P. 2d 696 (1976) October 27, 1976, Decided Attorney for the defendant-appellant: Heidel, Samberson, Gallini & Williams, Jerry L. Williams, Lovingto Attorney for the plaintiff-appellee: Gary J. Martone, J. Richard Baumgartner, Joseph Goldberg, Albuquerque Opinion by: Justice Sosa Facts: Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. employed Zelma M. Mitchell on July 4, 1972 in the position of Nurse Aide. After one year of employment with no noted reprimands, additional duties as a relief medications nurse were assigned two days per week. The plaintiff came to work on April 2, 1974, during a Federal inspection, out of uniform. She refused to go home and change, after asked to do so. The following day, the plaintiff arrived at work out of uniform again. On this occasion, she did go home to change after asked to do so. According to Betty Clarke, R.N., on May 15, 1972, in addition to other days, the plaintiff was obstinate and sang while dispensing medications. Clarke reported this behavior to Charge Nurse Stroope. On May 24, 1974, the plaintiff refused to give out medications as instructed by Ms. Stroope. The plaintiff made insulting remarks about the Nurse Aide, Carol Scurlock and Ms. Stroope on that day. Between May 24, 1974 and June 4, 1974, the...
Words: 650 - Pages: 3
...M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 10847.Oct. 27, 1976. Facts: After being terminated from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., Petitioner Zelma Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits, but was denied by the Unemployment Security Commission due to the nature of her termination, pursuant to § 59-9-6(B), N.M.S.A.1953. Issue: The issue is to determine whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953 and whether these actions were enough to warrant denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Rule: Though the term ‘misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law, the Supreme Court of New Mexico adopts the definition used by The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941). Application: Based on the newly adopted definition of misconduct, the court holds that Mrs. Mitchell’s inappropriate attire, insubordination, and name calling display unruly conduct and lack of regard for the Center. Conclusion: The Supreme Court reverses the decision of the district court and reinstates the decision of the Commission, holding that the employee’s misconduct justifies denying unemployment benefits. Table of Authorities Cases Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) 2 Zelma M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOVINGTON GOOD...
Words: 262 - Pages: 2
...Unit 3 Assignment Lerin Martin Kaplan University PA205 April 15, 2014 Zelma M. Mitchell., Plaintiff V. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., Defendant 89 NM 575,555 P.2d 696 (1976) Facts: On June, 4, 1974, the Plaintiff, Zelma Mitchell lost her job due to misconduct. She was working at Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment benefits shortly after on June 12, 1974. Mrs. Mitchell was denied unemployment benefits since she was terminated due to her misconduct. Mrs. Mitchell was not happy with this answer and filed an appeal, which she was able to reinstate her unemployment benefits starting August 28, 1974. Her Employer, Lovington Good Samaritan Center submitted another appeal which once again, disqualified Mrs. Mitchell from receiving unemployment benefits. Unwilling to settle, Mrs. Mitchell applied for certiorari, and her benefits were reinstated by the District court on January 16, 1976. Issue(s): Did Mrs. Mitchell’s actions in fact constitute misconduct according to 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953 Rule(s) of Law: “The term ‘Misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law.” (Zelma M. Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc, 1976) Due to this, the court reviewed the case of Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) and used their findings to formulate their own definition of Misconduct which is as follows: “‘misconduct’ . . . is limited to conduct evincing such...
Words: 472 - Pages: 2
...Mrs. Mitchell was hire to be a nurses aide, by the Good Samaritan Center located in Lovington, New Mexico. While working at the Good Samaritan center, Mitchell was given additional duties of handing out medications. There started to be issues with Mitchell not following the dress code, singing and not wanting to hand out medications. 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 and was denied her benefits. July 24 1974, Mrs. Mitchell applied for an appeal. The issue of this case is whether the petitioner’s actions constituted misconduct if so as to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benefits. 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 Wisconsin's 259-60,296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) term for “misconduct”. The final decision was to reinstate Mitchells Commission due to the fact that her conduct was never severe enough to utilize the “last straw” doctrine. Using the “last straw” method an employer can rely on the doctrine for terminating an employee, where the termination is justified by a series of incidents of poor performance, followed by a final incident showing a blatant disregard for the employer's interests. In this case the Source: Kaplan University PA205 Unit 3 assignment case Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan center...
Words: 264 - Pages: 2
...Landry Unit 3 Assignment Zelma M. Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. 555 P.2d 696 New Mexico Supreme Court (1976) CASE NAME: Zelma M. Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 New Mexico Supreme Court (1976) FACTS: Mrs. Zelma Mitchell started working at the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. as a nurse’s aide in 1972. Approximately one year on the job Mitchell began serving as a relief medications nurse two (2) days a week. Mitchell was terminated for misconduct. Mitchell’s testimony stated that she punctually arrived to work at 3:00 p.m. She stated that the Director of the Center questioned as to why she had filled out her time card. Mitchell responded that she would be working eight (8) hours for the day as long as she did not “break a leg or die.” The Director responded “Well, I’m not so sure about that.” Mitchell became defensive and made comments where the Director of Nursing overheard. This causing words to be exchanged between the three (3) parties in an open area where others could hear. The issue was taken for further discussion behind closed doors. The Director of the Center had to resolve the issue by putting Mitchell on two (2) week probation on the grounds that Mitchell had used the phrase to describe her employers “a birdbrain against another birdbrain” and stating “she can’t work with us”. Immediately, Mitchell demanded her final pay. PROCEDURAL...
Words: 687 - Pages: 3
...Analysis and Writing Angela Harbin Kaplan University Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976) FACTS: Zelma Mitchell’s employment at Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. was terminated for alleged misconduct. The alleged misconduct included refusing to administer medication as part of her duties, singing while counting medication which is unethical as it is a distraction, coming to work out of uniform on more than one occasion, filling in time card without having worked the hours recorded, and the “last straw” was being combative towards other employees. ISSUE: Do the actions of Mrs. Mitchell during her employment at the Center constitute misconduct enough to disqualify her from collecting unemployment compensation? RULE: Boynton Cab Co. v. Newbeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) states “…’misconduct’… is limited to conduct evincing such willful 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...
Words: 432 - Pages: 2
...University Unit 3 Case Brief Case: Mitchell v.Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976) Facts: On 6/4/1974 the Petitioner, Zelma Mitchell, was terminated from her employment at Lovington Good Samaritan Center, INC., for alleged misconduct. On 6/12/1974, Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation and was found ineligible due to her being terminated for misconduct. She was found to be ineligible by an Unemployment Security Commission Deputy. Mrs. Mitchell filed an appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, and the referee of the Tribunal, reversed the decision of the Unemployment Security Commission Deputy, and her benefits were reinstated. On September 13, 1974, the Good Samaritan Center INC., appealed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, to the entire Commission pursuant to s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A. 1953, and the Appeals Tribunal’s decision was overruled, and Mrs. Mitchell was again disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Mrs. Mitchell then asked for and received a review of the Commission’s decision, from the District Court of Bernalillo County, pursuant to s 59-9-6(K), N.M.S.A. 1953. On 01/16/1976, the District Court overturned the Commission’s decision, and Mrs. Mitchell was again reinstated to receive her unemployment benefits. On June 4, 1974, the Petitioner, Mrs. Mitchell, was caught by Center’s director filling in her time sheet, prior to commencing her shift. When questioned about why she was doing this, Mrs. Mitchell said she was just filling in the...
Words: 1475 - Pages: 6
...Unit 3: FIRAC Magdalene Renee Farmer Kaplan University Prof. Wendi Cline PA205: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing October 14th, 2012 Case Brief 1: Citation: N.M. 555 P.2d 696 Facts: Ms. Mitchell was a nurse’s aide that works at Lovington Good Samaritan Center. While working at the center, Mitchell was terminated for alleged misconduct. Mitchell then filed for unemployment and was denied. Issue: With all the events that Mitchell display at Lovington Good Samaritan Center, INC results in her termination. Are Ms. Mitchell actions at her employment constitutes misconduct, under § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953. Rule: rule 10.9 Analysis: The term misconduct was not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law, but Ms. Mitchell’s action display different; name calling, disobeying orders, rude and disrespect. Lead to the ruling that Ms. Mitchell did display misconduct and “last straw” would not be used and was rejected. Conclusion: The court is reversed, and the decision is up to the Commission and reinstated. Case Brief 2: Citation: N.M. 764, P.2d 1316 Facts: Ms. Rodman was a security guard at Prebytian Hospital for eight years. After being terminated, Ms. Rodman filed for unemployment just to be denied for misconduct. Issues: The incident that happened on February 15th, was consider the “Last straw”. Ms. Rodman was sent and was later terminated. Ms. Rodman conduct was to not break the rule, but to not cause a scene. Rule:...
Words: 495 - Pages: 2
...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
...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
...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...
Words: 388 - Pages: 2
...Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988). Facts: Ms. Rodman was an employee of Presbyterian Hospital for nearly eight years as a unit secretary. On February 17, 1987, the appellant was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a “third corrective action” notice. Ms. Rodman was reprimanded in June of 1986 in light of receiving an inordinate number of personal calls and visitors at her work station. The formal reprimand set forth conditions to prevent further corrective action. The conditions were as follows: no personal telephone calls during work hours outside of a designated break or dinner time, these are to occur in an area not visible to patients, physicians, or other staff. When leaving for dinner, Rodman was to report to her immediate supervisor and was not to leave the hospital. According to the testimony given by Rodman’s supervisor disruptive telephone calls continued. In November of 1986 Ms. Rodman received another written reprimand stating that her job was in jeopardy. Ms. Rodman’s supervisor established restrictions prohibiting visitors at the department and instructed her to notify security if there was a potential problem. On February 15, 1987 Ms. Rodman began work a 1:00 p.m. Ms. Rodman had spoken to her boyfriends’ mother earlier informing her she did not wish her boyfriend to use her car and that she had broken off their relationship. When the boyfriends’ mother called Ms. Rodman...
Words: 1030 - Pages: 5
...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
...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
...FACTS: Ms. Natalie Attired filed and was denied unemployment compensation benefits on the grounds of “misconduct” in July of 2010. She began working as a waitress at Biddy’s Tea House in May of 2009 and she received work performance evaluations every three months during her time of employment. Ms. Attired received a total of four evaluations, which showed constant improvements. In June of 2010, Natalie purchased a full-sleeve tattoo 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...
Words: 1173 - Pages: 5
