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 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.” (Zelma M. Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc, 1976)

Analysis: Due to the fact that Mrs. Mitchell was insubordinate to her superiors, she did not wear the proper attire, and called her co-workers names, Mrs. Mitchell displayed disregard to her employer. Taking each incident in totality, Mrs. Mitchell’s actions did in fact classify as misconduct under the court’s definition of misconduct.

Conclusion: The district court once again reversed the decision and reinstated the decision of the commission to deny unemployment benefits.

Disposition: Affirmed

References
Zelma M. Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc, No. 10847 (Supreme Court of New Mexico 10 27, 1976). Retrieved from http://extmedia.kaplan.edu/legal/PA205/PA205_1304A/PA205_Unit3_Assignment_Case.pdf