'Mrs. Meier\r'

'Citation: Zelma M. Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, 555 NM 2d, 696 (1976) Facts: Mrs. Mitchell was modify from her dumb appoint at Lovington good Samaritan Center because of an argument that bust out with the director of the center, Mr. Smith, and the Director of nursing, Mrs. Stroope. It is utter by the company that Mrs. Mitchell was terminated for alleged mishandle. later the finis Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation and was denied. She appealed the suit and was then awarded the benefits. later being awarded the benefits the suspect in the slip of paper appealed the coquette’s end to give Mrs. Mitchell the benefits and they reversed that end and the benefits were taken from Mrs. Mitchell. She again appealed the decision of the accosts. Ultimately with the explanation of â€Å" mishandle” take Issues: The issue in the case is that there is a back and forth novel in what misconduct is and what happen the sidereal sidereal d ay Mrs. Mitchell was terminated. The suspect’s case is a history of misconduct and the plaintiff is thinking only roughly the day she was terminated. Mr. Smith is saying that the incident where Mrs. Mitchell called himself and Mrs. Stroope â€Å"Birdbrains” was the exit straw.\r\n curb: In format to establish misconduct the defendant must canvas the Mrs. Mitchell was â€Å"evincing such voluntary or complete edit out of the employer’s interests as is found in reckon violations or slew of standards of doings which the employer has the right to yield of his employee, or in remissness or slackness of such stratum or recurrence as to manifest personify culpability, unconventional intent or evil throw or to show an knowing and substantial send away of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. abbreviation: The courts found that with the interpretation of misconduct adopted into the system that Mrs. Mitchell’s acts were in fact constituted as misconduct. Starting with her insubordination, illicit attire, name calling and other actions evinced blatant default to the way the center was ran and handled on a day to day basis. finish: After the appeals of Mrs. Mitchell and Lovington Good Samaritan center, the decision of the commission to have Mrs. Mitchell’s benefits revoked was reinstated.\r\nAnalogizing/Distinguishing- A relation in the two cases is they ar two applying for unemployment benefits and they were both fired for misconduct also they were both earlier denied for benefits and they are both good-hearted the decision. The differences in the case are Mrs. Mitchell was terminated for non respecting the higher in a higher place and non doing her job when asked. Mrs. Attired was terminated for getting a visible tattoo when warned she should not do so.\r\nWhen asked to get the tattoo removed she chose not to and is outright terminated from her position. Application to Client’s Facts- The facts in this case that could be applied to my case are that she did continuously pass the evaluations and was a good employee invariably had stuff to subject area on just neer enough for the owner to terminate the client until â€Å"the last straw” which in this case is the tattoo and in my case was the disrespect in calling the hustler a â€Å"bird brains”. Citation: Billie J. Rodman v.\r\nNew Mexico physical exercise hostage department and Presbyterian infirmary, 764 NM 2d, 1316 (1988) Facts: The plaintiff Billie has been terminated from her job of 8 years for misconduct. She has been denied unemployment benefits because she was terminated for misconduct. She is appealing the decision from the district court to revoke benefits. It is said that over the years of her working at the Presbyterian Hospital she had authorized 3 corrective action notices. earlier to the termination, restrictions had been plac ed on Rodman’s conduct delinquent to individualised problems impacting her and the people she worked with.\r\nRodman was tantalizeed in June of 1986 for receiving to many personal sound calls and personal visitors at her work station. They were troubled to her work and the work of her co-workers. The formal reprimand sure Rodman that she was to no vaster receive personal telephone calls and/or visitors during work hours. Unless it was at a designated defect or dinner time, if she were to have visitors at hanging or dinner time they could not be visible to patients, co-workers, or the doctors in the hospital.\r\nAfter the reprimand extremely disruptive telephone calls and visits continued. Leading up to the day Rodman was terminated. Rodman was to make every effort to break apart the personal issues in her life so they would not fall her at work. Issues: At issue is whether the misconduct Mrs. Rodman is accused of warranted termination from employment at the hospita l rose to the level of misconduct which would warrant self-control of unemployment compensation under NMSA 1978, Section 51â€1â€7 of the Unemployment Compensation Law.\r\nRule: In order to establish misconduct the defendant must uphold that Billie Rodman was â€Å"evincing such willful or complete disregard of the employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of air 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 her employer. After being reprimanded 3 times and the behavior continuing, the hospital had proof that the actions were documented and the plaintiff was warned they had no excerpt but to terminate said employee. Analysis: The court found with t he evidence provided from the hospital that Mrs. Rodman was reprimanded and warned as the policy states. The hospital put up with the actions of Mrs. Rodman long enough, they had no choice but to terminate Mrs. Rodman After the disregard of the policy. The plaintiff continued with the behavior she was reprimanded for.\r\nConclusion: Although the evidence in the case is amend up to(p) to more than one conclusion it is concluded that there was a substantial basis for the District Court to conclude that the Plaintiff is not to receive unemployment benefits. Analogizing/Distinguishing- Citation: Its Burger succession Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Labor Employment security department board of review & Lucy Apodaca, 769 NM, 2d, 88 (1989) Facts: Lucy was terminated from her position at Its Burger time Inc. because of misconduct. Lucy came into work one day with purple tinted pilus.\r\nShe had previously asked her fund manager John Pena how Mr. McGrath the owner of the cooperati on would feel about it. Mr. Pena said he would ask he neer asked and Lucy decided to dye her hair. Mr. McGrath sees the purple hair on Lucy and asked Mr. Pena to relay a message to her that she had a hebdomad to decide if she wanted her purple hair or her job. Lucy decided not to change her hair gloss and in doing so she was fired for misconduct. Mr. McGrath stated that it would affect the prosperity of his business.\r\nLucy had no history of issues in the departed year she had worked there and in the few years she was there with her purple hair there were no complaints from customers. A few times Lucy even received compliments on her hair color. Issues: The issue in this case is that the company terminated Lucy because of misconduct. According to the definition of misconduct Lucy choosing to keep her hair purple was not misconduct. The company gave Lucy an ultimatum and she chose to keep her hair purple.\r\nRule: In order to establish misconduct the Plaintiff in this case must prove that Lucy was â€Å"evincing such willful or complete disregard of the 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, 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 her employer.\r\nOn the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of softness 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. ” In this case Lucy did not commit misconduct in any way she made a choice to color her hair and the company could not prove with documentation of policies or past problems that Lucy was a incumbrance to the company.\r\nAnalysis: The courts found that Lucy was terminated from the company for misconduct, but the company could not prove that she had committed misconduct. She had neer had any problems in the past, she asked permission, and decided that she would dye her hair when given the ultimatum she choose to keep her hair purple. That is not what misconduct when given the definition. Conclusion: The district court is reversed and the decision of the Commission is reinstated. Lucy is now able to receive her unemployment benefits.\r\n'