PA205 Douglas Kaye Unit 4 assignment LATE SUBMISSION04242012

Analysis mrs mitchells insubordination improper

Info icon This preview shows pages 2–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ANALYSIS
Image of page 2

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Mrs. Mitchell’s insubordination, improper attire, name calling, and other conduct evinced a willful disregard of the interests of the Center. Although each separate incident was not sufficient enough to conclude misconduct, when taken in totality Mrs. Mitchell’s conduct sufficiently can be classified as misconduct when under the definition adopted by the court. CONCLUSION The decision of the district court is reversed and the decision of the Commission is reinstated.
Image of page 3
FIRAC TWO Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Sec. Dept., 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M.1988). Billie J. RODMAN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT and Presbyterian Hospital, Respondents–Appellees. The United States Supreme Court Supreme Court of New Mexico. No. 17721. NOVEMBER 30, 1988 Juan A. Gonzalez, Legal Aid Society of Albuquerque, Inc., Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant. Connie Reischman, New Mexico Employment Sec. Dept., Albuquerque, for respondents- appellees. RANSOM, Justice FACTS Rodman had been employed by Presbyterian Hospital when on February 17, 1987 she was terminated following a “third corrective action” notice. At issue is whether the misconduct which warranted the termination rose to the level of misconduct which would warrant the denial of unemployment compensation. Rodman recognizes the “last straw” doctrine, but contends that the district court erred in applying the rule in this case because her infractions on February 15 were the result of third parties over whom she had no control. Rodman contends that she may not be denied unemployment benefits where the “last straw” which led to her termination was not willful or intentional, especially where, under the employer’s policy, she could not have been discharged at all prior to this final incident.
Image of page 4

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ISSUE Whether the Misconduct which warranted termination from employment rose to the level of misconduct which would warrant denial of unemployment compensation under NMSA 1978, section 51-1-7 of the Unemployment Compensation Act and if substantial evidence existed that Rodman’s conduct on February 15, considered in light of the totality of circumstances including her previous history of personal phone calls and unauthorized visitors, showed a willful or wanton disregard for her employee’s interests, then Rodman’s benefits were properly denied. RULE We believe that termination for a series of incidents which, taken together, may constitute “misconduct” is distinguishable from termination for a single incident following one or more corrective action notices. In the latter event, as here, we hold that the “last straw” must demonstrate a willful or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests for unemployment benefits to be denied. ‘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
Image of page 5
Image of page 6
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