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
Words: 413 - Pages: 2
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
Words: 1087 - Pages: 5
From: Cassandra M. Stanback-Peterson Date: February 11, 2013 Re: Attired v. Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie STATEMENT OF FACTS Our client, Natalie Attired, was denied unemployment compensation after being terminated for “misconduct” from Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie. Natalie, began working as a waitress at Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie in Truth or Consequences, NM, in May of 2009. When Natalie started, there was no employee manual or written policy about employee
Words: 715 - Pages: 3
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
Words: 547 - Pages: 3
FACTS: Ms. Natalie Attired filed and was denied unemployment compensation benefits on the grounds of “misconduct” in July of 2010. She began working as a waitress at Biddy’s Tea House in May of 2009 and she received work performance evaluations every three months during her time of employment. Ms. Attired received a total of four evaluations, which showed constant improvements. In June of 2010, Natalie purchased a full-sleeve tattoo that covered her entire upper right arm, from shoulder to elbow
Words: 1173 - Pages: 5
accord with complete disregard by the requests of her employer to correct the mentioned actions. Analogizing / Distinguishing: This case and the case involving Natalie Attired both involve the use of improper language at work, which considered to be misconduct. Mitchell used derogatory language with other employees while Attired called customer names for not leaving what she felt was a reasonable tip. However, the
Words: 1748 - Pages: 7
Statement of the facts: Natalie Attired was employed at Biddy’s Teahouse Restaurant, owned by Biddy Baker age 60. Biddy’s has been in business for 20 years, no alcohol is served there. After being employed for three months, Attired purchased a full sleeve tattoo that covered her entire upper right arm. The tattoo was partially covered by her uniform, but the lower portion near the elbow was exposed. Baker was upset at the change in Attired’s physical appearance. Attired was immediately told by Baker
Words: 415 - Pages: 2
Natalie Attired a 23 year old female began working as a waitress at Biddy’s’ Tea House and Croissanterie in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico in May of 2009. Thirteen months after starting working for Biddy’s Tea House Mrs. Attired got a full-sleeve tattoo on her upper forearm. The tattoo was only partially covered by the waitress uniform required to be worn by the employee. Biddy Baker, the owner of Biddy’s Tea House told Ms. Attired to have the tattoo removed or be fired. Ms. Attired refused
Words: 896 - Pages: 4
willful disregard for her employer’s interests. Analogizing/Distinguishing Similarities in the case of Ms. Rodman and Ms. Attired are the fact that they both struggled to keep their home life and work life separate. For example Ms. Rodman was asked many times to stop using the company phone for personal phone calls because of it being disruptive to the work environment. Ms. Attired was asked to not have her boyfriend at the restaurant every day. When he was
Words: 892 - Pages: 4
COSTUME AND FASHION SOURCE BOOKS Elizabethan England Kathy Elgin Copyright © 2009 Bailey Publishing Associates Ltd Produced for Chelsea House by Bailey Publishing Associates Ltd, 11a Woodlands, Hove BN3 6TJ, England Project Manager: Patience Coster Text Designer: Jane Hawkins Picture Research: Shelley Noronha Artist: Deirdre Clancy Steer All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
Words: 16999 - Pages: 68
