PA205 Douglas Kaye Unit 4 assignment LATE SUBMISSION04242012

PA205 Douglas Kaye Unit 4 assignment LATE...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
FIRAC ONE Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (1976). Zelma M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellant The United States Supreme Court Supreme Court of New Mexico. CASE No. 10847. Oct. 27, 1976. Heidel, Samberson, Gallini & Williams, Jerry L. Williams, Lovington, for defendant-appellant. Gary J. Martone, J. Richard Baumgartner, Joseph Goldberg, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee. SOSA, Justice. FACTS On June 4, 1974, The appellee, Mrs. Mitchell was terminated from employment at the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. On June 12, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits and she was disqualified from seven weeks of benefits by a deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission. The appellee filed an appeal, and the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy’s decision. On August 28, 1974, the Appellee, Mrs. Mitchell’s, benefits were reinstated. Then on September 13, 1974, the Center appealed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal to the whole Commission. The Commission overruled the Appeal Tribunal, as such, reinstated the seven week disqualification period. Next, Mrs. Mitchell applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision of the Commission to the District Court of Bernalillo County. The District Court reversed the decision of the Commission and ordered benefits to be reinstated. From the judgment of the District Court, the Center appeals.
Image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ISSUE: The issue is whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953. RULE: The term ‘misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Supreme Court found that no statutory definition of misconduct existed. They formulated a definition for “misconduct” and the Supreme Court of New Mexico adopted that definition and holds that Mrs. Mitchell’s acts constituted misconduct. The term ‘misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck , 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) examined the misconduct subsection of its unemployment compensation act, found no statutory definition of misconduct, and formulated the following definition: ‘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, 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 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.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Fall '12
  • UNKNOW
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Unemployment benefits, unemployment compensation, Burger Time, Lucy Apodaca

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern