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”. This states
‘misconduct’ is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton 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 termination.

RODMAN V. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT 764 P. 2d 1316 (N.M 1988)

Mrs. Billie. Rodman was terminated on February 17, 1988 due to the fact that under the hospital policies this was Mrs. Rodman third time violating company policy. Mrs. Rodman had been with the company for 8 years. Mrs. Rodman’s conduct due to personal problems impacted 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.
Rule:
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. Rodman was to have no personal telephone calls during work hours outside of a designated break or dinner time, in which event they were to occur in an area not visible to patients, physicians, or other department staff.
Application:
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. When it got pretty bad with the phone calls, Billie would slam charts, push chairs and be a little abrupt with the people she worked with.” Another written reprimand in November of 1986 warned Rodman that her job was in jeopardy if the disruptive behavior continued.
Misconduct:
“[M]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. [M]ere 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.
Conclusion:
Mrs. Rodman was terminated merely because she failed to follow the rules of the company that were set forth for her. Mrs. Rodman caused many disturbances within her job with the receiving no stop phone calls and visits after being asked not to do this. Therefore failure to follow company policy results in termination and the denial of unemployment benefits.

IT'S BURGER TIME v. NEW MEXICO DEP'T OF LABOR, 1989-NMSC-008, 108 N.M.
175, 769 P.2d 88 (S. Ct. 1989)
Issue:
Apodaca was employed as a counter helper from August 1986 to August 1987 with It's
Burger Time, Inc. (Burger Time). Apodaca's supervisors had no complaints concerning the performance of her work. Several times during the summer of 1987, Apodaca approached the store manager, John Pena, to ask how the owner, Kevin McGrath, would react if she were to dye her hair purple. Pena did not at first take the question seriously. When Apodaca persisted, Pena told her that he would have to ask McGrath. Apparently, he never did so. After several weeks,
Apodaca went ahead and dyed her hair. McGrath saw Apodaca's tinted hair for the first time at work two days later. He instructed Pena to give Apodaca a week to decide whether she wanted to retain her new hair color or her job.

Rule:
The Department initially determined that Apodaca was ineligible for compensation because she had been terminated "for refusing to conform to the standards of personal grooming compatible with the work [she was] performing." The claims officer concluded this constituted misconduct under Section 51-1-7(B). Apodaca appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the denial of her benefits after a hearing

Application:
After reviewing the record of the hearing, the Board concluded that the employer failed to show how the color of Apodaca's hair affected its business; therefore, her refusal to return her hair to its original color did not rise to the level of "misconduct" required for denial of her benefits. For review of the Board's decision, the employer filed a writ of certiorari with the Dona Ana County District Court, as provided Sections 51-1-8(G), (L) and (M) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, and SCRA 1986,1-081(C). After considering arguments and briefs by counsel for Apodaca and the Department, and for Burger Time, the district court determined Burger Time's request to Apodaca to change the color of her hair was reasonable and enforceable and Apodaca's refusal of that request was misconduct. The court concluded that the Board of Review's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was contrary to the law and reversed the decision granting Apodaca her benefits.
Misconduct:
Definition of misconduct and the right to terminate. Although not directly presented on appeal in this case, we note that in their decision letters both the Appeals Tribunal and the Board of Review used the following definition: "The term 'misconduct' connotes a material breach of the contract of employment or conduct reflecting a willful disregard of the employer's best interests.
Conclusion:
In this case, pursuant to Department regulations requiring an employer to report why a claimant was fired or have that claimant's benefits charged against the employer's account,
Burger Time submitted a letter stating that Apodaca refused to comply with company grooming standards. At each subsequent stage of the administrative process and before the district court, Burger Time sought to establish that Apodaca was terminated for misconduct. It therefore fell upon Burger Time to show that Apodaca's refusal to change the color of her hair amounted to misconduct under the standard considered in Alonzo and Trujillo. This, Burger Time failed to do and thus failed to meet its burden of proof.