Unit 3: Legal Analysis and Writing
PA-205
Shannon R. Courson
Kaplan University
11/28/15

ZELMA M. MITCHELL, Appellant, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC.,
Appellee.
No. 10847.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
89 NM 575,555 P. 2d 696 (1976)
October 27, 1976, Decided
Attorney for the defendant-appellant:
Heidel, Samberson, Gallini & Williams, Jerry L. Williams, Lovingto
Attorney for the plaintiff-appellee:
Gary J. Martone, J. Richard Baumgartner, Joseph Goldberg, Albuquerque
Opinion by: Justice Sosa
Facts:
Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. employed Zelma M. Mitchell on July 4, 1972 in the position of Nurse Aide. After one year of employment with no noted reprimands, additional duties as a relief medications nurse were assigned two days per week. The plaintiff came to work on April 2, 1974, during a Federal inspection, out of uniform. She refused to go home and change, after asked to do so. The following day, the plaintiff arrived at work out of uniform again. On this occasion, she did go home to change after asked to do so. According to Betty Clarke, R.N., on May 15, 1972, in addition to other days, the plaintiff was obstinate and sang while dispensing medications. Clarke reported this behavior to Charge Nurse Stroope. On May 24, 1974, the plaintiff refused to give out medications as instructed by Ms. Stroope. The plaintiff made insulting remarks about the Nurse Aide, Carol Scurlock and Ms. Stroope on that day. Between May 24, 1974 and June 4, 1974, the plaintiff refused to complete her duties as relief medication aide. The plaintiff, Zelma M. Mitchell was terminated on June 4, 1974 from the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. on the grounds of misconduct, after getting into an argument with a co-worker and the Center Director Smith when he placed Plaintiff on two-week probation. Mr. Smith provided Plaintiff with a one-week salary, pay for the day of termination and a one-week vacation, none of which was required.
Issue:
Pursuant to § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953 and the adopted definition of misconduct from Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck,: 237 Wis. 249, 259-260, 296 N.W. 636,640(1941), were the combined actions during the plaintiff’s employment enough to be considered misconduct and thus, disqualify the plaintiff from unemployment compensation benefits?
Rule Statement: New Mexico Unemployment Compensation Law had no previous definition for the term “misconduct,” therefore; the Supreme Court of New Mexico adopted the definition of misconduct as defined by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636 (1941).
Rule Explanation: Misconduct is defined by the Wisconsin Supreme Court as “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 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.”
Analysis:
Under the newly adopted definition of the term ‘misconduct,’ the plaintiff, Zelma M. Mitchell is found to have behaved in a manner that shown disregard for her employer. Ms. Mitchell’s actions were deliberate violations and willful disregard when she chose not to wear proper uniform attire on the day of a Federal inspection. The actions were not isolated instances since they occurred within a short time frame. She showed no proof to being unable to perform her duties due to incapacity.