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 Wisconsin's 259-60,296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) term for “misconduct”.
APPLICATION:
There were several instances in which MS Mitchell exhibited a poor choice of behavior. Her wardrobe choice, disruptive behavior, refusal to perform her duties on their own to not constitute a claim of misconduct. Still they do exhibit a willful disregard for the interests of her employer.

CONCULSION:
The decision of the district court to allow Ms. Mitchell to receive unemployment benefits was reversed and the decision of the Commission was reinstated. This meant that the actions of Ms. Mitchell were deemed to be misconduct under the definition provided in a precedent setting case.