Zelma M Mitchell V Lovington Good Samaritan Center
Citation: Zelma M. Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, 555 NM 2d, 696 (1976)
Facts:
Mrs. Mitchell was terminated from her position at Lovington good Samaritan Center because of an argument that broke out with the director of the center, Mr. Smith, and the Director of nursing, Mrs. Stroope. It is said by the company that Mrs. Mitchell was terminated for alleged misconduct. After the termination Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation and was denied. She appealed the case and was then awarded the benefits. After being awarded the benefits the defendant in the case appealed the court’s decision to give Mrs. Mitchell the benefits and they reversed that decision and the benefits were taken from Mrs. Mitchell. She again appealed the decision of the courts. Ultimately with the definition of “misconduct” take
Issues:
The issue in the case is that there is a back and forth story in what misconduct is and what happen the day Mrs. Mitchell was terminated. The defendant’s case is a history of misconduct and the plaintiff is thinking only about the day she was terminated. Mr. Smith is saying that the incident where Mrs. Mitchell called himself and Mrs. Stroope “Birdbrains” was the last straw.
Rule:
In order to establish misconduct the defendant must prove the Mrs. Mitchell was “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 his employer. Analysis: The courts found that with the definition of misconduct adopted into the system that Mrs. Mitchell’s acts were in fact constituted as misconduct. Starting with her insubordination, improper attire, name calling and other actions evinced blatant disregard to the way the center was ran and handled on a day to day basis.
Conclusion:
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.
Analogizing/Distinguishing
A similarity in the two cases is they are both applying for unemployment benefits and they were both fired for misconduct also they were both originally denied for benefits and they are both appealing the decision. The differences in the case are Mrs. Mitchell was terminated for not respecting the higher above and not doing her job when asked. Mrs. Attired was terminated for getting a visible tattoo when warned she should not do so.
When asked to get the tattoo removed she chose not to and is now 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 always had stuff to work on but never enough for the owner to terminate the client until “the last straw” which in this case is the tattoo and in my case was the disrespect in calling the operator a “bird brains”.
Citation: Billie J. Rodman v.New Mexico Employment security department and Presbyterian Hospital, 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 received 3 corrective action notices. Prior to the termination, restrictions had been placed on Rodman’s conduct due to personal problems impacting her and the people she worked with.
Rodman was reprimanded in June of 1986 for receiving to many personal telephone calls and personal visitors at her work station. They were disruptive to her work and the work of her co-workers. The formal reprimand informed Rodman that she was to no longer receive personal telephone calls and/or visitors during work hours. Unless it was at a designated break or dinner time, if she were to have visitors at break or dinner time they could not be visible to patients, co-workers, or the doctors in the hospital.
After the reprimand extremely disruptive telephone calls and visits continued. Leading up to the day Rodman was terminated. Rodman was to make every effort to resolve the personal issues in her life so they would not affect her at work.
Issues:
At issue is whether the misconduct Mrs. Rodman is accused of warranted termination from employment at the hospital 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:
In order to establish misconduct the defendant must prove that Billie Rodman was “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. 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 choice but to terminate said employee.
Analysis:
The court found with the 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.
Conclusion:
Although the evidence in the case is amendable to more than one conclusion it is concluded that there was a substantial basis for the District Court to decide that the Plaintiff is not to receive unemployment benefits.
Citation: Its Burger Time 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 hair.
She had previously asked her store manager John Pena how Mr. McGrath the owner of the cooperation would feel about it. Mr. Pena said he would ask he never 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 week to decide if she wanted her purple hair or her job. Lucy decided not to change her hair color and in doing so she was fired for misconduct. Mr. McGrath stated that it would affect the prosperity of his business.
Lucy had no history of issues in the past year she had worked there and in the few days 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.
Rule:
In order to establish misconduct the Plaintiff in this case must prove that Lucy was “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.
On the other hand 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. ” 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 burden to the company.
Analysis:
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 never 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.
