...Unit 6 Assignment Kaplan University Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing PA205 LEGAL MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Natalie Attired Unemployment Compensation Claim Facts: July 2010, Ms. Natalie Attired filed and was denied unemployment compensation benefits on the grounds of “misconduct”. May 2009, Ms. Attired began employment with Biddy’s Tea House where she received work performance evaluation every 3 months during her time of employment. Ms. Attired received a total of four evaluations, which showed constant improvement and no reprimands. June 2010, Ms. Attired purchased a full-sleeve tattoo (photo attached) which covered the entire upper right arm; there was an incident where the lower portion of the tattoo could be seen below the short sleeve uniform. Ms. Baker the owner advised Ms. Attired that if she did not remove the tattoo she would be fired. Ms. Attired refused to remove the tattoo and she was terminated on that Friday for misconduct. Ms. Biddy Baker stated that there is no employee manual or written policy about employee conduct or work attire. Ms. Baker also failed to provide any proof of a decline in sales during Ms. Attired’s employment. All Ms. Baker provided was the names of two customers who requested to be moved from Ms. Attired ‘section due to her tattoo. 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 New Mexico Statute...
Words: 413 - 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
...Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Ctr., Inc. 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976) Issue: What constitutes misconduct under New Mexico Statutes Annotated; whether Mitchell committed actions which constituted misconduct under N.M. Stat. Ann.§ 59-9-5(b) (West 1953). Holding: Misconduct is not defined by the Unemployment Compensation Law within the New Mexico Statutes Annotated; however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (Wis.1941) formulated a definition which the Supreme Court of New Mexico adopted. This law states misconducted occurs with any of the following: disregards the standard of behavior, to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interest, and disregard of the employer’s duties. Such actions as inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct are not to be deemed as misconduct. (ld.) Analysis: With the definition of misconduct being adopted by the courts Mrs. Mitchell’s acts of name calling (terms such as birdbrain and “white” girl), improper attire (wearing non uniform pants), and insubordination (refusing job assignments and singing after being told to stop) on multiple occasions shows sufficient misconduct. The incidents as a whole show a consistent disregard for the center and Mrs. Mitchell’s co-workers. Decision: Therefore, as a result it is clear that Mrs. Mitchell committed various forms of misconduct over a three month period on her own accord with complete disregard...
Words: 1748 - Pages: 7
...Statement of Facts: Natalie Attired has come to the law firm to see if she is eligible for unemployment benefits. Natalie filed for unemployment compensation in July 2010. The New Mexico Employment Security Board denied the claim on the grounds Natalie was fired for “misconduct”. In May of 2009, Natalie Attired began work at Biddy’s Tea House. Over the course of her employment, she received four employee evaluations all of which showed improvement over time. The first employee evaluation asked Natalie to have her boyfriend and friends come to work less often. The second employee evaluation stated the boyfriend and friends were coming around less often. The third employee evaluation stated that Natalie needed to work on not calling people names when they didn’t leave a tip. The fourth employee evaluation noted improvement. In June of 2010, Natalie got a full-sleeve tattoo that covered her entire upper right arm, from shoulder to elbow. The uniform worn at Biddy’s Tea House did partially cover the tattoo, but the lower portion could still be seen. The owner, Biddy Baker, did not approve of the change in Natalie’s appearance, and told her to have the tattoo removed or she would be fired. Natalie did not remove the tattoo, and was given a termination notice on Friday after working all week. Mrs. Baker stated that the clientele of Biddy’s Tea House would be “appalled and disgusted” by the tattoo, which would lead to a decline in business. Mrs. Baker was not able to provide proof...
Words: 1087 - Pages: 5
...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 Unit 1 Case Study In 1984, the Republican Party met in Dallas, Texas for their national convention. President Ronald Reagan, seeking a second term in office, was to be officially named the Republican Party’s candidate for President. During the convention, opponents of Reagan’s policies organized a political protest in Dallas, which attracted over 100 protestors. Among the protestors was Gregory Lee Johnson. As the demonstrators marched through the streets chanting slogans, another protester handed Gregory Johnson an American flag that had been taken from a flagpole at one of their protest locations. Upon reaching Dallas City Hall, Johnson doused the flag with kerosene and set it ablaze. Johnson and his fellow demonstrators circled the burning flag and shouted anti- American slogans. No one was injured or threatened with injury by Johnson’s act, but many who witnessed it were deeply offended. Dallas police officers arrested Johnson and charged him with violating section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” Johnson pleaded not guilty in Dallas County Criminal Court, and after a trial was found guilty of violating the statute. He was sentenced to one year in prison and fined $2,000. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13, 1984). Johnson appealed his case to the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District, claiming that the statute under...
Words: 538 - Pages: 3
...PA205: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Prof. Wendi Cline Kaplan University November 13, 2014 By, Heather Leigh Bradley 1. The case study references one state statute. Identify it and explain what it prohibits. “The case study of State vs. Johnson references one specific state statue, 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, Desecration of a Venerated Object. A person commits an offense if he/she intentionally or knowingly desecrates, a state or national flag. “Desecrate” means to deface, damage, destroy, vandalize and/or mistreat in a way that the actor knowingly will greatly offend one or more persons are like to observe or discover his/her action. This offense is a Class A misdemeanor “(Case Study Texas vs. Johnson, 2014). The statue prohibits intentionally or knowingly desecrating, destroying, damaging, burning, mistreating of a state or national flag in public that will seriously offend one or more persons and is witnessed by one or more persons. This statue was made to prohibit only flagrant acts of flag desecration that take place in a public setting or place (Case Study Texas vs. Johnson, 2014). 2. Which branch of government created the state statute? The state statue, 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, Desecration of a Venerated Object, was created under legislative branch. The State’s interest is to prevent a breach of peace by prohibiting certain acts of flag desecration have been considered to be unrelated to the suppression...
Words: 985 - Pages: 4
...Ashley Waldo Kaplan University PA205-01 Unit 1 Writing Assignment 1.) The case study references one state statute. Identify it and explain what it prohibits. The case study references Texas Penal Code section 42.09(a)(3) which prohibits the desecration of a venerable object. 2.) Which branch of government (executive, judicial, or legislative) created the state statute? The legislative branch, the Senate and House of Representatives, of the government created this state statute. 3.) The passage above also discusses one court case. Who were the parties involved in the case? The state of Texas and Gregory Johnson were the parties’ involved in this court case. 4.) The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least amount of authority. The case was heard by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals which has the most authority, the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District with the middle amount of authority, and the Dallas County Criminal Court with the least amount of authority. 5.) Provide the citation for the United States Supreme Court’s decision in this case. After hearing oral arguments and reading the parties’ appellate briefs, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, affirmed the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Texas V. Johnson...
Words: 500 - Pages: 2
...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
...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
...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
...PA205-03 UNIT 1 ASSIGNMENT CASE STUDY QUESTIONS 1. The case study references one state statute. Identify it and explain what it prohibits. My understanding of the case study is that the identifiable state statute is section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” This statute helps to prohibit misuse and abuse of the state and American flag. 2. Which branch of government (executive, judicial, or legislative) created the state statute? The legislative branch, the Senate and House of Representatives, of government created the state statute. 3. The passage above also discusses one court case. Who were the parties involved in the case? The parties involved in the court case in the above passage are Gregory Johnson and the State of Texas. 4. The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least amount of authority. Most authority = Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Middle authority = Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District Least authority = Dallas County Criminal Court 5. Provide the citation for the United States Supreme Court’s decision in this case. After hearing the oral arguments and reading the parties’ appellate briefs, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, affirmed the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Texas...
Words: 489 - Pages: 2
...Alyce Farrish PA205 Rodman Brief Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) Rodman v. N.M., 764 P.2d 1316 (1988) Facts: Ms. Rodman (appellant) was an employee of Presbyterian Hospital as a unit secretary for nearly eight years. On February 17, 1987, Ms. Rodman was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a “third corrective action” notice. In June of 1986 Ms. Rodman was reprimanded for having received an inordinate amount of personal telephone calls and visits from people while she was at work and on company time. Her behavior was disruptive to the patients as well as other employee’s. She was informed by her boss not to take any more personal calls outside of being on break or dinner and she was not to have any visitors at her work station. These breaks were to take place in an area not visible by patients, or other staff, and she was not to leave the confines of the hospital unless she reported leaving to her immediate supervisor. On February 15, 1987, Rodman arrived at work, but prior to arriving, called her boyfriend’s mother and told her not to let her boyfriend have her car keys. While she was at work his mother called and told her that her boyfriend had her car keys, she told the mother to have him call her at work. He called and she told him she could not speak with him at her station, he hung up, called her back and left a number for her to call him. Ms. Rodman went to the break room and called him. When she...
Words: 564 - Pages: 3
...FIRAC Case Brief PA205: Introduction to Legal 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...
Words: 432 - Pages: 2
...Unit 1 Assignment PA205-03 UNIT 1 ASSIGNMENT CASE STUDY QUESTIONS 1. The case study references one state statute. Identify it and explain what it prohibits. My understanding of the case study is that the identifiable state statute is section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” 2. Which branch of government (executive, judicial, or legislative) created the state statute? The legislative branch of government created the state statute. 3. The passage above also discusses one court case. Who were the parties involved in the case? The parties involved in the court case in the above passage are Gregory Lee Johnson and the State of Texas. 4. The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least amount of authority. Most authority = Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Middle authority = Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District Least authority = Dallas County Criminal Court 5. Provide the citation for the United States Supreme Court’s decision in this case. After hearing the oral arguments and reading the parties’ appellate briefs, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, affirmed the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). 6. What effect did the United States Supreme Court’s decision have on the Texas...
Words: 308 - Pages: 2
