{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

PA205 Douglas Kaye Unit 3 assignment

For refusing to conform to the standards of personal

Info iconThis preview shows pages 9–12. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
“for refusing to conform to the standards of personal grooming compatible with the work [she was] performing.” The claims officer concluded that this constituted misconduct. Apodaca appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed her denial of benefits. She then appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Department’s Board of Review. After reviewing the record of the hearing, the Board concluded that the employer failed to show how Apodaca’s hair color affected its business; therefore, her refusal to return her hair to its original color did not rise to the level of “misconduct” required for denial of her benefits. For review of the Board’s decision, the employer filed a writ of certiorari with the Dona Ana County District Court who determined that Burger Time’s request to Apodaca to change her hair color was reasonable and enforceable and Apodaca’s refusal of that request was misconduct. The court concluded that the Board of
Background image of page 9

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PA205 Unit 3 Assignment Review’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was contrary to the law and reversed the decision granting Apodaca her benefits. This appeal followed. ISSUE At issue in this case is whether or not an employee who refuses to alter her personal appearance in conformity with the employer’s personal beliefs about acceptable community standards has engaged in misconduct. The employer argues, and the district court apparently agreed, that so long as the request is reasonable and the employee is given adequate time to comply, refusal amounts to “insubordination and misconduct.” RULE Apodaca’s refusal to alter her personal appearance in conformity with the employer’s personal beliefs about acceptable community standards does not make her guilty of engaging in misconduct. ANALYSIS There is absolutely no evidence that the color of Apodaca’s hair significantly affected Burger Time’s business. Both the store manager and the store owner testified that they received no customer complaints regarding the color of Apodaca’s hair. Apodaca’s immediate supervisor reported that the only comments she heard were compliments, and that Burger Time’s customers normally registered complaints when they found something amiss. Under these circumstances, the Board of Review could properly decide that Apodaca’s refusal to re tint her hair did not rise to the level of misconduct. CONCLUSION The decision of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the decision of the Board of Review.
Background image of page 10
PA205 Unit 3 Assignment
Background image of page 11

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PA205 Unit 3 Assignment REFERENCES: FIRAC, Case Briefs, and the Anatomy of a Case. 8-2-10 law unit 1 FIRAC power point presentation.
Background image of page 12
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page9 / 12

for refusing to conform to the standards of personal...

This preview shows document pages 9 - 12. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online