{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

PA205 Douglas Kaye Unit 3 assignment

Analysis although the evidence in this case is

Info iconThis preview shows pages 6–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ANALYSIS Although the evidence in this case is amenable to more than one reasonable interpretation, we conclude that there was a substantial basis for the district court to decide that Rodman’s actions
Background image of page 6

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PA205 Unit 3 Assignment on February 15, when considered in light of the restrictions which had been placed upon her and her previous failure to comply with those restrictions, demonstrated a willful disregard for her employer’s interests. CONCLUSION Decision of the district court is affirmed; Claimant’s termination demonstrated willful disregard for her employer’s interests, therefore, unemployment compensation is denied.
Background image of page 7
PA205 Unit 3 Assignment FIRAC THREE CITATION It’s Burger Time, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Labor Employment Security Department, Board of Review, and Lucy Apodaca, 769 P.2d 88 (1989). CASE NAME IT’S BURGER TIME, INC., Petitioner–Appellee, v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT, BOARD OF REVIEW and Lucy Apodaca, Respondents–Appellants. COURT UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION Supreme Court of New Mexico. DOCKET NUMBER No. 17952. DATE OF DECISION February 22, 1989 ATTORNEYS FOR PARTIES Jose R. Coronado, Southern New Mexico Legal Services, Inc., Las Cruces, Connie Reischman, New Mexico Dept. of Labor, Albuquerque, for respondents-appellants. Kelly P. Albers, Lloyd O. Bates, Jr., Las Cruces, for petitioner-appellee. NAME OF JUSTICE WRITING THE OPINION RANSOM, Justice.
Background image of page 8

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PA205 Unit 3 Assignment FACTS Lucy Apodaca was employed with It’s Burger Time, Inc., and during her time of employment there were no complaints concerning the performance of her work. Several times Apodaca inquired to the store manager about how the store owner would react if she were to dye her hair purple. Apparently, the manager never did ask him about the matter, after several weeks Apodaca went ahead and dyed her hair. The owner saw Apodaca’s hair for the first time two days later, and instructed the manager to give her a week whether she wanted to keep her hair color or her job. He stated that he could not wait for this incident to take a toll on his business. Apodaca had signed the company handbook upon being hired which instructed employees of acceptable hygiene and appearance. The handbook did not say anything about hair color. The manager relayed the message to Apodaca who informed him two days later that she had decided to keep her hair color. She was then terminated and filed for unemployment benefits. The Department initially decided that Apodaca was ineligible for compensation because she had been terminated “for refusing to conform to the standards of personal grooming compatible with the work [she
Background image of page 9
Image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page6 / 12

ANALYSIS Although the evidence in this case is amenable to...

This preview shows document pages 6 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

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