Free Essay

Natalie Attired

In: Computers and Technology

Submitted By mistyo17
Words 960
Pages 4
Misty Owens
PA 205 Professor Brian Craig
Kaplan University

Citation: Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Sec. Dept. 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M 1988)

Facts: Employee was receiving numerous phone calls and visits periodically from her partner at her work place. This then escalated to a physical confrontation with the partner outside her work place in the lobby. She had been place on restrictions. So it was either her employee was going to fire her or not. Her employee fired her due to it being the third warning at her workplace at the time. She was denied unemployment compensation benefits.

Issue: Whether the situation of her partner’s phone calls, physical confrontation in the lobby and outside her work place all along with numerous phone calls from her partner disregarding her employer’s feelings, justifies denial of unemployment benefits.

Holding: Yes. An employer’s in constitutes misconduct for denial of unemployment benefits.

Analysis: The evidence of misconduct was based off of District Court decisions in which justified Rodman’s actions towards the situations being that she was on limitations at her place of employment and no interest in her employer’s interest.

Disposition: The decision from the District Court was to consider Rodman demonstrating a willful disregard for her employer’s interests. This caused her to have misconduct and not get her unemployment compensation benefits. Leaving the District Court decision to be affirmed.

Analogizing Distinguishing: There was an analogy between the Rodman case and the client Natalie Attired statement which was that the termination was for misconduct and was ineligible for unemployment just as Rodman was denied benefits due to her misconduct. The distinguishment qualities of the Rodman case and client Natalie Attired is that Rodman was reprimanded 3 times prior to termination and Natalie never was reprimanded. She was a good employee prior to this termination.

Application to client’s facts: The holding in the Rodman case brief can be applied using the facts from client Natalie Attired in altering her appearance and refusing to remove her tattoo as the employer had requested of her. This expressed misconduct in wilfing or wantoningly as regards of an employer’s interest as in violation deliberate as regarding standards of behavior and carelessness or negligent of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability.

Citation: Claim of Apodaca, 769 P.2d 88 (N.M.1989)

Facts: This fast food employee went against policy and dyed her hair purple. She then refused to retint it to comply with policy. She then was ultimately let go from her work place. Fortunately there was no evidence that the color of her hair affected her work place. So she then had to file a claim for unemployment compensation being that she was out of work due to this situation that had occurred at her former work place. The New Mexico Supreme Court had no evidence that her color of her hair had effected the employers place of business, so therefore the unemployment compensation benefits was granted for her. Issue: The issue is whether a fast food employee refusal to retint her purple hair constituted misconduct justifying the denial of unemployment compensation benefits where there is no proof or evidence that the color of her hair significantly affected employers business.

Holding: No. A fast food restaurant employee’s refusal to retint her purple hair does not constitute of misconduct justifying denial of employment compensation where there was no evidence that the color of her hair significantly affected employer’s place of business.

Analysis: The evidence of misconduct connotes a material breach of the conduct of employment of contract of employment or conduct reflecting a willful disregard of the employer’s best interests. The use of the term “or “implies that any breach of the employment contract sufficient to warrant discharge of the employee serves as adequate grounds for denial of benefits, whether or not the employer acted in willful or wanton manner. Misconduct is limited to conduct evincing such wilful 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. 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.

Disposition: The decision of the trial court was reversed and his case was remanded for entry of judgment constituent with the decision of the Board of Review. Under these circumstances, the Board of Review could properly decide that Apodaca’s refusal to retint her hair did not rise to the level of misconduct. Therefore she was granted her unemployment compensation benefits.

Analogizing/ Distinguishing: There was an analogy that expressed both employers worked within an industry that dealt with the public and fast food restaurants in the Apodaca case and Ochampaugh v. Settle case. They also had similar qualities in arguments with changing their physical appearance to fit the needs of their employer’s opinions. The distinguishing qualities of the Apodaca case is the clients stated the reason of termination was for the refusal to retint her hair and not the sleeved tattoo on her arm she always wanted in this case.

Application of client’s facts: The holding in the Apodaca case brief can be applied using the facts of Natalie Attired statement in which explains that there was no evidence to prove that her tattoos did any harm to the employer’s business credentials as well as status in the establishment. This does not constitute misconduct in justifying denial of employment compensation benefits with no proof of an effect on employer’s business.

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Natalie Attired

...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 there (attached). There is no employee manual or......

Words: 1044 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Natalie Attired

...LEGAL MEMORANDUM To: From: Nimrod Vigilance Date: 8/26/2012 Subject: Natalie Attired Unemployment Compensation Claim Facts: In 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. In 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. In July 2010, Ms. Natalie Attired filed and was denied unemployment compensation benefits on the grounds of “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 §51-1-7. Brief Answer: No. Ms.......

Words: 410 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Natalie Attired

...Memorandum TO: Senior Partner FROM: paralegal RE: Our new client Natalie Attired DATE: 10/07/2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Statement of Facts: When Ms. Attired began working at Biddy’s Restaurant she did not have to sign an employee handbook that could have easily covered the employer’s preferences including preferences on personal appearance for employees. Attired was fired from Biddy’s one week after getting a tattoo on her arm that was visible under her work uniform, Ms. Attired applied for and was denied unemployment compensation for alleged misconduct. Question(s) Presented: I. Is termination justifiable when the employer does not have a handbook specifying what is acceptable for an employee’s personal appearance? II. Can it be considered misconduct when an employee refuses to remove a tattoo based on N.M. Stat. Ann. §51-1-7? III. Did Ms. Attired’s appearance affect business at Biddy’s? Brief Answers: I. Ms. Attired did not sign an employee handbook but she may have signed a waiver to termination at the employer’s request and without reason. II. There is no information about tattoos having anything to do with misconduct as defined by N.M. Stat. Ann. §51-1-7 and there are obvious ways Ms. Attired could have easily covered up her tattoo with sleeves had the establishment permitted it. III. Biddy’s had a few long term customers that requested a different......

Words: 265 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Natalie Attired Case

...To: Attorney Valdes From: Paralegal Goines Date: 01/06/2016 Re: Natalie Attired claim for wrongfully withholding unemployment compensation against (NMESB) Memorandum Statement of Facts Natalie Attired was an employer at Biddy’s Tea House for three months. She asked another waitress about getting a tattoo. The waitress advised her not to get it where it would be visible or she would be fired. The waitress that gave her the advice was working there for ten years. Natalie did not take the other waitress advice and still got the tattoo. The tattoo was not fully covered by the uniform. The tattoo covered her entire upper right arm. The length was shoulder to elbow. Biddy Baker was not pleased with the tattoo. He asked her to remove the tattoo if she wanted to keep her job. Natalie refused. After the week was finished she was given a termination notice. She applied for unemployment compensation but was terminated for “misconduct”. Questions Presented * Can Natalie Attired file a claim against New Mexico Employment Security Board (NMESB) for wrongfully withholding her unemployment compensation? * Should Natalie be able to receive unemployment compensation? Answers Briefed * No, Natalie cannot file a claim because she was technically in the wrong. She knew that the tattoo was not a good idea for the environment and was warned. * No, Natalie was terminated for “misconduct”. She also was proven to show actions of misconduct. Applicable......

Words: 447 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Natalie Attired Unemployment Compensation Claim.

...SAMPLE LEGAL MEMORANDUM TO: Professor Pruitt FROM: Cristopher L. Butler DATE: 6-26-2012 SUBJECT: Natalie Attired Unemployment Compensation Claim. STATEMENT OF 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 ( attached), which showed constant improvement with 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,she was terminated on that Friday for misconduct. Ms. Biddy Baker has stated there is no employee manual or written policy about employee conduct or work attire. Ms. Baker also has not provided any proof of a decline in sales during Ms. Attired’s employment. All Ms. Baker provided was names of two customers who requested to be moved from Ms. Attired ‘section due to her tattoo. ISSUE/QUESTION PRESENTED 1. The issue in this case is whether Natalie Attired’s failure to remove her tattoo when instructed by her employer to do so constitutes......

Words: 725 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Natalie Attired Legal Memorandum

...Unauthorized Practice of Law Regina Johnson PA253: Legal Ethics Professor Craig Dorne April 22, 2012 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to clearly establish and sustain a viewpoint of UPL (Unauthorized Practice of Law) in the state of Tennessee. The facts state that Mr. Stan Smith calls his friend, Polly Paralegal, and leaves a message asking, “Do the grounds for divorce in Tennessee include adultery?” Later that day, Mrs. Stan Smith calls Polly Paralegal and leaves a message asking, “Do I have grounds for divorce in Tennessee? I just found out that Stan committed adultery.” Questions: 1. If Polly Paralegal answers Mr. Smith’s question, will she have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law? Explain and support your answer with information for at least one authoritative reference source. 2. If Polly Paralegal answers Mrs. Smith’s question, will she have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law? Explain and support your answer with information for at least one authoritative reference source. Unauthorized Practice of Law What is the unauthorized practice of law? What does a paralegal do when they answer friends’ questions? Is Polly Paralegal committing UPL is she gives advice to her friends Mr. and Mrs. Stan Smith? By state statutes and ethics codes and the ABA Model Rules, attorneys are prohibited from aiding in the unauthorized practice of law and have an obligation to supervise their legal assistants and paralegals to ensure that they are not...

Words: 1049 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Pa205 Unit 9

...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......

Words: 328 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Pa205

...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......

Words: 413 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Pa205 Unit 9

...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......

Words: 1087 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Memorandum

...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 conduct. Biddy’s evaluated waitresses’ performance every three months and Natalie received four evaluations while she worked there. Her evaluation from May of 2009 to August of 2009 showed that she was usually on time for work, generally pleasant to the customers and very good at making change without using a calculator. Natalie needed to improve separating her work and personal life as well as struggling with order accuracy. Natalie’s goal was to ask her boyfriend and his friends to come around less often, as they affected the environment in the establishment and to work on achieving 100% order accuracy. After working at Biddy’s for about three months, Natalie told another waitress that her boyfriend wanted her to get a tattoo. The waitress, who worked at Biddy’s for 10 years, told Natalie to “get it where the sun don’t shine” because if the tattoo was visible at work, Natalie would be fired. Natalie’s evaluations continued to improve from September of 2009 through May of 2010. Natalie was always on time for......

Words: 715 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Memorandum Unit 6

...VERONICA DECKER 9/30/2013 MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM Memorandum By: Veronica Decker Unit 6 PA205-02: Introduction to Legal Analysis 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 partially covered by the waitress uniform, except for the lower portion near her elbow. The owner (Biddy Baker) had told Natalie that, “if the tattoo was not removed, she would be fired.” Natalie then refused to have it removed. She worked the rest of the week and was terminated that Friday. When asked for prove of decline in sales during Natalie’s employment, Ms. Baker could not provide any. 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 because of the tattoo. In July 2010, Natalie filed for unemployment compensation. Her claim was denied by the New Mexico Employment Security Board on the grounds that she was terminated for “misconduct” and was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation. Questions Presented: 1. Did......

Words: 547 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Pa205- Unit 5

...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 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 facts of the Attired case do not support means for termination for misconduct, as this was an incident reported on an evaluation from December 2009-Febraury 2010 and the behavior was corrected by the following evaluation, for March –May 2010. Application to Client’s Facts:  In the case of Mitchell the repeated offenses qualified as a means for termination, as misconduct is defined by the State of New Mexico adopted from the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Mitchell showed intentional and substantial disregard for her employer’s interest, which is defined to be misconduct with the repetitive use of derogatory remarks and insubordination. Attired however corrected behavior as her evaluations show and received no formal write-ups for any instances, her actions would not fall under the definition of misconduct. Rodman v. New Mexico Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) Facts: Rodman was an employee of Presbyterian......

Words: 1748 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Firac

...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. 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...

Words: 1173 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Assighnment 7 Pa 205

...(A) 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 to remove the tattoo or she would be terminated. Attired failed to remove the tattoo, she worked at Biddy’s for the rest of the week and was given a termination notice. Baker said her customers would be “appalled and disgusted” and this would lead to a decline in profits. Baker was unable to provide any proof that Attired’s tattoo actually caused the restaurant to lose money. Attired’s job performance had been evaluated every three months. There were a total of four evaluations, only one had an unfavorable remark. The Dec 2009-Feb 2010 evaluation said that Attired was told that it is not alright to call a customer a name because he did not leave you a tip. There is no employee manual or written policy about employee conduct. Attired applied but was denied unemployment benefits under the grounds that she was guilty of employee misconduct. (B) At issue in this case is whether an employee who refuses to alter her personal appearance in conformity with the employer’s personal......

Words: 415 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Legal Analysis

...comply with those restrictions, demonstrated a 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 coming into her place of work, he was causing a disruptive work environment. The difference between the two women was the fact that Ms. Attired did in fact take into consideration how her employer felt about her boyfriend constantly being present at her place of work and made sure that he was not coming around as often. While Ms. Rodman did not take into consideration how her employer felt about the many personal phone calls during company time. Application to Clients Facts After reviewing the case being briefed, I believe that Ms. Attired is in fact entitled to Unemployment Benefits. The reasoning for Ms. Attired being terminated was due to a new tattoo. It is also stated that there was no sort of employee manual or written policy about employee conduct. So in fact there was nothing stating that Natalie could not in fact have a visible tattoo. This was all on personal preference of the owner. Apodaca v. New Mexico Department of Labor Employment Security......

Words: 892 - Pages: 4