Misty Owens
PA 205 Professor Brian Craig
Kaplan University

Citation: Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Sec. Dept. 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M 1988)

Facts: Employee was receiving numerous phone calls and visits periodically from her partner at her work place. This then escalated to a physical confrontation with the partner outside her work place in the lobby. She had been place on restrictions. So it was either her employee was going to fire her or not. Her employee fired her due to it being the third warning at her workplace at the time. She was denied unemployment compensation benefits.

Issue: Whether the situation of her partner’s phone calls, physical confrontation in the lobby and outside her work place all along with numerous phone calls from her partner disregarding her employer’s feelings, justifies denial of unemployment benefits.

Holding: Yes. An employer’s in constitutes misconduct for denial of unemployment benefits.

Analysis: The evidence of misconduct was based off of District Court decisions in which justified Rodman’s actions towards the situations being that she was on limitations at her place of employment and no interest in her employer’s interest.

Disposition: The decision from the District Court was to consider Rodman demonstrating a willful disregard for her employer’s interests. This caused her to have misconduct and not get her unemployment compensation benefits. Leaving the District Court decision to be affirmed.

Analogizing Distinguishing: There was an analogy between the Rodman case and the client Natalie Attired statement which was that the termination was for misconduct and was ineligible for unemployment just as Rodman was denied benefits due to her misconduct. The distinguishment qualities of the Rodman case and client Natalie Attired is that Rodman was reprimanded 3 times prior to termination and Natalie never was reprimanded. She was a good employee prior to this termination.

Application to client’s facts: The holding in the Rodman case brief can be applied using the facts from client Natalie Attired in altering her appearance and refusing to remove her tattoo as the employer had requested of her. This expressed misconduct in wilfing or wantoningly as regards of an employer’s interest as in violation deliberate as regarding standards of behavior and carelessness or negligent of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability.

Citation: Claim of Apodaca, 769 P.2d 88 (N.M.1989)

Facts: This fast food employee went against policy and dyed her hair purple. She then refused to retint it to comply with policy. She then was ultimately let go from her work place. Fortunately there was no evidence that the color of her hair affected her work place. So she then had to file a claim for unemployment compensation being that she was out of work due to this situation that had occurred at her former work place. The New Mexico Supreme Court had no evidence that her color of her hair had effected the employers place of business, so therefore the unemployment compensation benefits was granted for her. Issue: The issue is whether a fast food employee refusal to retint her purple hair constituted misconduct justifying the denial of unemployment compensation benefits where there is no proof or evidence that the color of her hair significantly affected employers business.

Holding: No. A fast food restaurant employee’s refusal to retint her purple hair does not constitute of misconduct justifying denial of employment compensation where there was no evidence that the color of her hair significantly affected employer’s place of business.

Analysis: The evidence of misconduct connotes a material breach of the conduct of employment of contract of employment or conduct reflecting a willful disregard of the employer’s best interests. The use of the term “or “implies that any breach of the employment contract sufficient to warrant discharge of the employee serves as adequate grounds for denial of benefits, whether or not the employer acted in willful or wanton manner. 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. 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.

Disposition: The decision of the trial court was reversed and his case was remanded for entry of judgment constituent with the decision of the Board of Review. Under these circumstances, the Board of Review could properly decide that Apodaca’s refusal to retint her hair did not rise to the level of misconduct. Therefore she was granted her unemployment compensation benefits.

Analogizing/ Distinguishing: There was an analogy that expressed both employers worked within an industry that dealt with the public and fast food restaurants in the Apodaca case and Ochampaugh v. Settle case. They also had similar qualities in arguments with changing their physical appearance to fit the needs of their employer’s opinions. The distinguishing qualities of the Apodaca case is the clients stated the reason of termination was for the refusal to retint her hair and not the sleeved tattoo on her arm she always wanted in this case.

Application of client’s facts: The holding in the Apodaca case brief can be applied using the facts of Natalie Attired statement in which explains that there was no evidence to prove that her tattoos did any harm to the employer’s business credentials as well as status in the establishment. This does not constitute misconduct in justifying denial of employment compensation benefits with no proof of an effect on employer’s business.