{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

PA205 Douglas Kaye Unit 9 assignment

She then appealed the tribunals decision to the

Info iconThis preview shows pages 4–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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 Review’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was contrary to the law and reversed the decision granting Apodaca her benefits. concluded that Apodaca’s refusal to alter
Background image of page 4

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
her personal appearance in conformity with the employer’s personal beliefs about acceptable community standards does not make her guilty of engaging in misconduct and employers must show appearance factors caused loss of business to be able to terminate an employee for misconduct. Biddy Baker makes claim that the “more mature” clientele who come to her tea house would be “appalled and disgusted” by Natalie’s tattoo, which could lead to a decline in sales however, Biddy was unable to provide sufficient evidence of such a loss. In fact, the patrons offered by Biddy as witnesses, though they requested a different table, they are still patronizing Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie, thus showing that there is no loss of business by Ms. Attired refusal to remove her tattoo. CONCLUSION The decision of the trial court could conclude that the employer failed to show how Ms.Attired’s tattoo affected its business; therefore, her refusal to remove her tattoo did not rise to the level of “misconduct” required for denial of her benefits.
Background image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}