Brief as a Memo Essay Sample

Our New Client Natalie Attired ; denial of Unemployment benefits for alleged misconduct

Facts: In May 2009. Natalie Attired began working at Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie. This company evaluates its employees every three months. There is no employee manual or written policy sing employee behavior. In June 2010. Natalie got a tattoo which was seeable when she wore her short-sleeved uniform. Ms. Biddy was upset about the visibleness of her tattoo and informed her that if she did non hold the tattoo removed. she would be terminated. Ms. Attired refused to hold the tattoo removed and worked the balance of the hebdomad and was given a expiration notice on Friday. Ms. Biddy stated that the tattoo would take to a diminution in gross revenues ; nevertheless. she was non able to supply any cogent evidence of diminution in gross revenues or net incomes after Ms. Attired got the tattoo. Ms. Biddy did supply the names of two clients who requested to sit in a different subdivision the twenty-four hours before Natalie was fired saying “who wants to look at that while you’re eating? ” Natalie filed for unemployment compensation in July 2010.

Her claim was denied by New Mexico Employment Security Board on the evidences that she was terminated for “misconduct ; ” hence. she was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Ms. Attired is actioning the New Mexico Employment Security Board for wrongfully keep backing her unemployment compensation. Issues: The issue is whether or non Ms. Attired’s actions constituted misconduct N. M. Stat. Ann. sec. 59-9-5 ( B ) ( 1953 ) . Rule: “Misconduct” is a term that is non defined in Unemployment Compensation Law in New Mexico. In Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck. 237 Wis. 249. 259-60. 296 N. W. 636. 640 ( 1941 ) Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed its subdivision sing misconduct in the Unemployment Compensation Act and found that there was no statutory definition of “misconduct” so it developed a definition and the State of New Mexico adopted the same definition… . . . ‘misconduct’ . . . is limited to carry on expressing such willful or motiveless neglect of an employer’s involvements as is found in calculated misdemeanors or neglect of criterions of behaviour which the employer has the right to anticipate of his employee. or in sloppiness or carelessness of such grade or return as to attest equal blameworthiness. unlawful purpose or evil design or to demo an knowing and significant neglect of the employer’s involvements or of the employee’s responsibilities and duties to his employer.

On the other manus mere inefficiency. unsatisfactory behavior. failure in good public presentation as the consequence of inability or incapacity. unmindfulnesss or ordinary carelessness in stray cases. or good religion mistakes in judgement or discretion are non to be deemed ‘misconduct’ within the significance of the statute… Analysis: In order for Ms. Attired’s actions to represent misconduct N. M. Stat. Ann. sec. 59-9-5 ( B ) ( 1953 ) . she would hold had to intentionally go against a regulation or policy that stated she could non hold seeable tattoos while on displacement at Biddy’s Tea House. This would be demoing sloppiness or being negligent of the employer’s involvements. Since Biddy’s Tea House does non hold an employee policy manual saying what constitutes misconduct and what the disciplinary actions are for any misdemeanors of misconduct. Ms. Attired could non hold violated such actions since there is no cognition of the employer’s outlooks of its employees.

The province may claim that Ms. Attired’s actions constituted misconduct in comparing to Mrs. Mitchell’s actions in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center. 555 N. M. P. 2d 696 ( 1976 ) where Mrs. Mitchell deliberately wore the incorrect colour unvarying bloomerss and refused to administrate medicines when moved to the floor because Ms. Attired got a tattoo after another employee told her it was non in her best involvements to acquire the tattoo if she intended to remain employed at Biddy’s Tea House. The fact that another employee of Biddy’s Tea House informed Ms. Attired that if she got a seeable tattoo. she would be fired is irrelevant because there is no manual to mention to for a policy sing employees holding tattoos.

In It’s Burger Time. Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Labor Employment Security Department. 769 N. M. P. 2d 88 ( 1989 ) . Ms. Lucy Apodaca was terminated from her place at It’s Burger Time because she colored her hair purple after inquiring another employee if the director would O.K. of it or non. The other employee told her to inquire the director and she disregarded the response. The director stated that this would impact his concern but had no cogent evidence to demo his concern was negatively affected by Ms. Apodaca’s violet hair. The employee enchiridion. which Ms. Apodaca signed upon acquiring hired. stated that that employees must hold acceptable hygiene and visual aspect ; nevertheless. the enchiridion stated nil specific about hair colour. Therefore. Ms. Apodaca’s unemployment benefits were reinstated. Other issues that were stated in her ratings such as non being able to run the hard currency registry right and her fellow patronizing the concern frequently may hold been good religion mistakes in judgement or discretion so these issues are defined by this legislative act. However. these are non the grounds she was terminated from her occupation at Biddy’s Tea House.

Decision: Ms. Attired’s actions did non represent misconduct because acquiring a tattoo does non run into the legal definition of employee misconduct. She was unaware of the policies or the personal outlooks of the employees due to the deficiency of a policy manual for the concern. Had this been a written policy or verbal understanding between Ms. Attired and Ms. Baker. so Ms. Attired would hold violated this regulation of misconduct by demoing a willful or motiveless neglect of an employer’s involvements. which is a calculated misdemeanor or neglect of criterions of behaviour which the employer has the right to anticipate of his employee. or in sloppiness or carelessness of such grade or return as to attest equal blameworthiness. unlawful purpose or evil design or to demo an knowing and significant neglect of the employer’s involvements or of the employee’s responsibilities and duties to his employer. Since this misdemeanor ne’er occurred harmonizing to the definition of misconduct N. M. Stat. Ann. sec. 59-9-5 ( B ) ( 1953 ) . Ms. Attired should be granted unemployment compensation because her actions did non lift to a degree of misconduct.