...RE:Our client Natalie Attired; denial of unemployment benefits for alleged misconduct Introduction Natalie Attired was terminated from her employment because she got a tattoo that was visible on her arm and refused to have it removed. Natalie never received an employee handbook on policies and procedure prior to her being hired. Claimm of Apodaca 108 N.M. 175, 769 P.2d 88,(N.M. 1989) I think our clients case will be in our favor, she was terminated due to misconduct however, her tattoo had nothing to do with going against regulations because she never had anything in writing outlining what policies and procedures . Facts Natalie Attired began working as a waitress at Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie in May 2009. In June 2010, Natalie spent $XX on a full-sleeve tattoo which covered her entire upper right arm from shoulder to elbow. The tattoo was partially covered by the waitress uniform, but the lower portion near the elbow could be seen when the short-sleeved uniform was worn.. Natalie refused to remove the tattoo. She worked at Biddy’s for the rest of the week and was given a termination notice on Friday.She was fired on the basis of misconduct and was denied unemployment compensation. There was no proof in decline in sales. Issue Did Ms. Attired actions constitute misconduct and denial of benefits under New Mexico Statutes Annotated § 51-1-7? Rules New Mexico Statutes Annotated, § 51-1-7 § 51-1-7. Disqualification for benefits An individual...
Words: 328 - Pages: 2
...PA205: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Client Interview – To be used for Unit 4 and for Legal Memorandum (Units 6-9) Notes from Client Interview: Natalie Attired 23 years old Grew up in Albuquerque, New Mexico Attended private schools through 12th grade After graduation in 2007, spent a year in Europe, mostly Paris Returned from Europe in 2008 and enrolled at New Mexico State University, planning to major in Early Childhood Education. After a couple classes, found out that she didn’t like working with small children and reconsidered her career plan. While she attended NMSU, she often went to a local bar called Skully’s, which catered to a mix of college students and members of the local biker community. At Skully’s, she met a 30 year-old man named Zeke Teller, who was a member of the Los Calambres Motorcycle Club. Zeke had three children from three previous relationships. In early 2009, Natalie began riding on his motorcycles and after a few months of hanging around the club became Zeke’s “old lady.” After attending NMSU for one year, Natalie dropped out of school in May 2009 and began working as a waitress at Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie in Truth or Consequences, NM. Biddy’s has been in business for over 20 years, and is run by Biddy Baker, age 60. The restaurant serves tea, sandwiches, scones, and desserts. No alcohol is served in the establishment. Biddy’s evaluates waitress’ performance every three months. Natalie received four evaluations while she worked...
Words: 1044 - Pages: 5
...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
...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 Inc.,1976 Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center. INC. , 555 P.2d 696 (N.M....
Words: 264 - Pages: 2
...2013 VERONICA DECKER 9/30/2013 2013 VERONICA DECKER 9/30/2013 MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM Memorandum By: Veronica Decker Unit 6 PA205-02: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Professor: Jacqueline Medenblik September 30, 2013 Statement of Facts: Our client is Natalie Attired, Ms. Attired began working as a waitress at Biddy’s Tea House in May 2009. During her time at Biddy’s, Natalie was evaluated four different times. Her evaluations showed improvement. There was no manual or written policy about employee conduct. In June 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 waitress uniform, except for the lower portion near her elbow. The owner (Biddy Baker) had told Natalie that, “if the tattoo was not removed, she would be fired.” Natalie then refused to have it removed. She worked the rest of the week and was terminated that Friday. When asked for prove of decline in sales during Natalie’s employment, Ms. Baker could not provide any. 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 because of the tattoo. In July 2010, Natalie filed for unemployment compensation. Her claim was denied by the New Mexico Employment Security Board on the grounds that she was terminated for “misconduct” and was therefore ineligible for unemployment...
Words: 547 - Pages: 3
...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
...Three Briefs Helen Mayes Kaplan University PA205: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing June 26, 2012 Citation- Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976) Facts- 1. Plaintiff (Mrs. Mitchell) was terminated from her job at Lovington good Samaritan Center, Inc., due to alleged misconduct. Plaintiff then filed for unemployment compensation benefits. Due to the finding from the deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission Mrs. Mitchell was denied benefits for seven weeks. Plaintiff appealed the decision and was granted her money. The Unemployment center appealed that ruling and the first ruling went back into effect. Mrs. Mitchell appealed that ruling applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision. The Plaintiff’s money was reinstated to her by the District Court. 2. Mrs. Mitchell was terminated from her job on June 4, 1974. On April 2 and April 3, 1974, Plaintiff went to work out of uniform. The first day she was told to go home and change she refused to do so, however, on the second day she did as she was told. Then on May 15, 1974, the plaintiff was singing while working, it was reported as unethical and time- consuming. Another incident happened on May 24, 1974. Mrs. Mitchell was told to change from medications to the floor routine. She was told why she was being switched but she was not co-operative. From that day unit June 4, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell refused to do her job. On June 4, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell went to...
Words: 1976 - Pages: 8
...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
...<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN""http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"><html><head><title>Business Policy And Strategic Management - G. V. Satya Sekhar - Google Books</title><script>(function(){(function(){function d(a){this.t={};this.tick=function(a,c,b){b=void 0!=b?b:(new Date).getTime();this.t[a]=[b,c]};this.tick("start",null,a)}var a=new d;window.jstiming={Timer:d,load:a};if(window.performance&&window.performance.timing){var a=window.performance.timing,c=window.jstiming.load,b=a.navigationStart,a=a.responseStart;0<b&&a>=b&&(c.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,b),c.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt",a),c.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT), c&&0<b&&(c.tick("_tbnd",void 0,window.chrome.csi().startE),c.tick("tbnd_","_tbnd",b))),null==a&&window.gtbExternal&&(a=window.gtbExternal.pageT()),null==a&&window.external&&(a=window.external.pageT,c&&0<b&&(c.tick("_tbnd",void 0,window.external.startE),c.tick("tbnd_","_tbnd",b))),a&&(window.jstiming.pt=a)}catch(e){}})();})(); </script><script>(function() {var preloadImg = document.createElement('img');preloadImg.src = 'http://books.google.com/books?id=nYNPtZNnx9YC&pg=PR2&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U1vGx3jE1apd2pjAdwnJ_85sunasA&w=685';window['_OC_preload_image_url']...
Words: 27178 - Pages: 109
