{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

PA205 Douglas Kaye Unit 4 assignment LATE SUBMISSION04242012

It therefore fell upon burger time to show that

Info iconThis preview shows pages 9–11. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
It therefore fell upon Burger Time to show that Apodaca’s refusal to change the color of her hair amounted to misconduct under the standard considered in Alonzo and Trujillo. This, Burger Time failed to do and thus failed to meet its burden of proof. Moreover, Apodaca presented uncontroverted testimony that no customers complained, and some complimented her for her hair. We do not question Burger Time’s right to establish a grooming code for its employees, to revise its rules in **92 *179 response to unanticipated situations, and to make its hiring and firing decisions in conformity with this policy. However, as we noted in Rodman, “It is * * * possible for an employee to have been properly discharged without having acted [in a manner] as would justify denial of benefits.” 107 N.M. at 761, 764 P.2d at 1319. 2 Definition of misconduct and the right to terminate. Although not directly presented on appeal in this case, we note that in their decision letters both the Appeals Tribunal and the Board of Review used the following definition: “The term ‘misconduct’ connotes a material breach of the contract of employment or conduct reflecting a willful disregard of the employer’s best interests.” (Emphasis added.) We rejected this definition in Rodman, 107 N.M. at 763, 764 P.2d at 1321, as inconsistent with the Mitchell standard requiring a willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interests. The use of the term “or” implies that any breach of the employment contract sufficient to warrant discharge of the employee serves as adequate grounds for denial of benefits, whether or not the employee acted in a willful or wanton manner. “Where an employee has not acted with the requisite degree of ‘fault’ under Mitchell, he or she has not sacrificed a reasonable expectation in continued financial security such as may be afforded by accrued unemployment compensation benefits.” Id. at 761, 764 P.2d at 1319. 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. 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 9

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
UNIT FOUR ASSIGNMENT: 1. Analogizing/Distinguishing: Explain one similarity and one difference between the case being briefed and your client’s facts Natalie's claim was denied by the New Mexico Employment Security Board on the grounds that she was terminated for “misconduct” and was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation. The issue is whether Natalie's actions constituted misconduct under § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953 which is similar to case Apodaca v It’s Burger Time, Inc. 769 P.2d 88 (N.M. 1989) where Apodaca’s refusal to alter her personal appearance in conformity with the employer’s personal beliefs about acceptable community standards caused her to get fired for "misconduct" as well. The difference with Apodaca v It’s Burger Time, Inc. 769 P.2d 88 (N.M. 1989) and Natalie
Background image of page 10
Image of page 11
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 ]}

Page9 / 11

It therefore fell upon Burger Time to show that Apodacas...

This preview shows document pages 9 - 11. Sign up to view the full document.

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