...PapersHome Page » Other Topics Rodman V. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) In: Other Topics Rodman V. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988).Facts: Ms. Rodman was an employee of Presbyterian Hospital for nearly eight years as a unitsecretary. On February 17, 1987, the appellant was terminated under hospital personnel policies followinga “third corrective action” notice. Ms. Rodman was reprimanded in June of 1986 in light of receiving aninordinate number of personal calls and visitors at her work station. The formal reprimand set forthconditions to prevent further corrective action. The conditions were as follows: no personal telephonecalls during work hours outside of a designated break or dinner time, these are to occur in an area notvisible to patients, physicians, or other staff. When leaving for dinner, Rodman was to report to herimmediate supervisor and was not to leave the hospital. According to the testimony given by Rodman’ssupervisor disruptive telephone calls continued. In November of 1986 Ms. Rodman received anotherwritten reprimand stating that her job was in jeopardy. Ms. Rodman’s supervisor established restrictionsprohibiting visitors at the department and instructed her to notify security if there was a potential problem.On February 15, 1987 Ms. Rodman began work a 1:00 p.m. Ms. Rodman had spoken to her boyfriends’mother...
Words: 355 - 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
...Legal Analysis and Writing Unit #5 Case Briefs of Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Dept. Apodaca v. New Mexico Department of Labor Employment Security Dept. Name of Student Date University Name Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P. 2d. 1316 (N.M.1988) FACTS: Billie J Rodman was terminated from her employment with Presbyterian Hospital as a Unit Secretary on February 17, 1987. Ms. Rodman was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a “third corrective action” notice. Ms. Rodman has been placed on notice and given restrictions on her conduct following issues with her personal problems adversely impacting her place of work. These issues included excessive personal phone calls and unauthorized visitors to her workstation. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: New Mexico Employment Security Department denied Ms. Rodman’s request for unemployment benefits based on her misconduct connected with work under §51-1-7(B). Ms. Rodman appealed to The Appeals Tribunal of the Department of Employment Security. The Tribunal found based on evidence that Ms. Rodman had willing disregarded her employees request to improve her conduct at work despite her contentions that she could not stop a third party from their actions. The hearing officer deemed Ms. Rodman’s actions as unreasonable and constituted misconduct. ISSUE: Did Ms. Rodman’s misconduct on February 17, 1987 which lead to her termination rise to the level of misconduct which would warrant denial...
Words: 1020 - Pages: 5
...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
...Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P. 2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) Facts- Ms. Billie J. Rodman worked for the Presbyterian Hospital as a unit secretary for eight years. February, 1987 she was terminated from her employment due to continuous, disruptive phone calls, visits, and disruptions that caused her and her co-works many distractions and distress. She was reprimanded twice for these incidents. On the day of her termination, she had an incident with her boyfriend outside of the hospital, which caused her to rip her shirt. She apparently left with her boyfriend, went home, changed and returned to work station 35 minutes later. After this incident occurred, she kept getting disruptive phone calls and the supervisor, tired of the disruptions and her behavior, decided to send her home and later was terminated. History- The case was heard at The District Court, Bernalillo County, holding up the decision of the administration, denying the unemployment compensation to the claimant. The case was then appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court. Issue- Did the misconduct of the employee leading to termination, rise to the level of misconduct as defined in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan, Inc., 555 P. 2d 696 (N.M. 1976)? Holdings- Yes, it did because she had prior history of being reprimanded for disruptive, continuous phone calls and visits. Rule- New Mexico Supreme Court finds this rule under the “last straw” doctrine, which a series of incidents constituting...
Words: 416 - Pages: 2
...Case Brief Rodman v. New Mexico Security Department 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988). Facts: Rodman 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. Prior restrictions had been placed on Rodman's conduct due to personal problems adversely impacting upon her place of work. Issue: whether the misconduct which warranted termination from employment rose to the level of misconduct which would warrant denial of unemployment compensation under NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-7 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, NMSA 1978, Sections 51-1-1 to 51-1-54 (Repl.Pamp. 1987). Rule: New Mexico provides that an employee who is determined to have been discharged for "misconduct" is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. § 51-1-7(B) Two purposes are served by this statutory bar: first, it prevents the dissipation of funds for other workers; second, it denies benefits to those who bring about their own unemployment by conducting themselves with such callousness, and deliberate or wanton misbehavior that they have given up any reasonable expectation of receiving unemployment benefits. Given the remedial purpose of the statute, and the rule of statutory construction that its provisions are to be interpreted liberally, the statutory term "misconduct" should not be given too broad a definition. Accordingly, in adopting the...
Words: 562 - Pages: 3
...Olga Tikhonov Kaplan University PA205-01: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Unit 4 Assignment CASE No. 1. Billie J. Rodman v. New Mex. Emp't Sec. Dep't & Presbyterian Hosp., 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) Facts: Claimant Billie J. Rodman was employed as a secretary at Presbyterian Hospital as a secretary, was terminated and later denied unemployment benefits. She was terminated after 8 years of employment following a third corrective action. Rodman was previously placed on restrictions due to personal problems adversely affecting her work. Rodman was reprimanded for the first time for receiving too many disruptive phone calls and visitors at her work station. The phone calls and visitors were negatively impacting her work and co-workers testified she would slam charts and be abrupt with the people she worked with. The disruptive phone calls continued and she was issued a second reprimand and warned that her job was on the line. On the day of her third reprimand Rodman had gotten into an argument with her ex-boyfriend about her car and received many phone calls that day. Additionally her ex-boyfriend showed up at the hospital which resulted in a torn shirt and security being called to step and assist with the situation. After the incident the phone calls continued and it was determined that Rodman should be sent home and subsequently terminated. Claimant was denied unemployment compensation on the basis that she was unwilling to restrict her personal contacts...
Words: 782 - Pages: 4
...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
...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. The tattoo was partially covered by the her uniform, with the exception of the lower portion near her elbow. The owner, Biddy Baker told Natalie that, “If the tattoo was not removed, she would be fired”. Natalie refused to have it removed. She worked the remaining of that week and was terminated that Friday for misconduct. Ms. Baker could not provide any proof of decline in sales during Natalie’s employment. 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 due to the tattoo. Natalie filed for unemployment compensation benefits in July of 2010. Her claim was denied by the New Mexico Employment Security Board on the grounds that she was terminated for “misconduct” and was ineligible for unemployment compensation. 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 N.M. Stat. Ann. §51-1-7. Also, if Ms. Baker provided proof of Natalie’s appearance having a negative effect on the business, causing sales/profits...
Words: 1173 - Pages: 5
...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
...Case Briefing MITCHELL v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARTAIN CENTER, INC., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M 1976) Mrs. Mitchell (appellee) was terminated on Facts: Mrs. Mitchell (appellee) 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 where she was denied by the deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission; July 24 1974, Mrs. Mitchell applied for an appeal, where she then received a reinstatement of benefits on August 28 1974. On September 13 1974 appealed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal to the whole Commission pursuant to s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A..1953. The commission overruled the Appeal Tribunal an re-instated the seven week disqualification period. Mrs. Mitchell applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision of the Commission to the District Court of Bernalillo County pursuant to s 59-9-6(K), N.M.S.A. 1953. January 16, 1976, the District Court reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered it to reinstate the benefits to Mrs. Mitchell. From the Judgment of the District Court, the Center appeals. Issue: The issue of this case is whether petitioner’s actions constituted misconduct so as to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benefits. Under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953 Rule: “Misconduct” is a term that is not defined in Unemployment Compensation Law. New Mexico adopted Wisconsin's 259-60,296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) term for “misconduct”...
Words: 1292 - Pages: 6
...Unit 8-Assignment Memo Statement of Facts: 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 to have the tattoo removed and was terminated the following Friday one week from being warned. Mrs. Attired had be warned by a “seasoned” employee of 10 years of Biddy’s Tea House that if the tattoo was visible she would be terminated. Other than the warning of her coworker there are no written rules or handbooks outlining personal appearance including but not limited to tattoos. Mrs. Attired would like to know if she can sue the New Mexico Employment Security Board for denying her unemployment benefits under N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. 51-1-7 (West, 2012) after ruling she was terminated from her employment due to misconduct. Biddy Baker, owner of Biddy’s Tea House states her reasoning for terminating Ms. Attired is as follows: The “more mature” clients of the Tea House would be “disgusted and appalled” by the tattoo. Ms. Baker was unable to provide proof to a decline in revenue due to Ms. Attireds appearance. Ms. Baker did provide...
Words: 896 - Pages: 4
...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
...Rodman v. N.M. Employment Sec. Dept., 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) Facts On February 17, 1987 Rodman’s employment from Presbyterian Hospital was terminated under the hospitals third corrective action policy. Rodman was reprimanded on June of 1986 for receiving an inordinate number of personal phone calls and visitors at her work station. This was not only disruptive to Rodman’s work, but her co-workers as well. Issue Did Ms. Rodman’s actions constitute misconduct under the §51-1-7, N.M.S.A. 1978 Statute? Rule Misconduct is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer had 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 disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. Analysis Ms. Rodman's repeated actions of phone calls, and visitors, and leaving the hospital after being notified by a supervisor that this behavior was unacceptable. This showed a complete disregard for her employer’s interests. Conclusion District court stated when considering the restrictions which had been placed upon Ms. Rodman and her previous failure to comply with those restrictions, demonstrated a willful disregard for her employer’s interests. Analogizing/Distinguishing ...
Words: 892 - Pages: 4
...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 which they feel shows that Mrs. Mitchell’s actions fell under misconduct. Analysis:...
Words: 2045 - Pages: 9
