Unit 7 Kaplan Pa205 Assignment

682 Words3 Pages
Alisha Ricketts Legal Analysis and Writing PA-205 March 19, 2013 Facts: Natalie Attired was employed at Biddy’s Teahouse Restaurant, owned by Biddy Baker age 60. Biddy’s has been in business for 20 years, no alcohol is served there. After being employed for three months, Attired purchased a full sleeve tattoo that covered her entire upper right arm. The tattoo was partially covered by her uniform, but the lower portion near the elbow was exposed. Baker was upset at the change in Attired’s physical appearance. Attired was immediately told by Baker to remove the tattoo or she would be terminated. Attired failed to remove the tattoo, she worked at Biddy’s for the rest of the week and was given a termination notice. Baker said her customers would be “appalled and disgusted” and this would lead to a decline in profits. Baker was unable to provide any proof that Attired’s tattoo actually caused the restaurant to lose money. Attired’s job performance had been evaluated every three months. There were a total of four evaluations, only one had an unfavorable remark. The Dec 2009-Feb 2010 evaluation said that Attired was told that it is not alright to call a customer a name because he did not leave you a tip. There is no employee manual or written policy about employee conduct. Attired applied but was denied unemployment benefits under the grounds that she was guilty of employee misconduct. Issues: Can Ms. Baker provide proof that Natalie’s appearance negatively affected business as to cause reduced sales and profits? Rule: An individual shall be disqualified for and shall not be eligible to receive benefits if it is determined by the division that the individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with the individual's employment. In Burger Time, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Labor, the court held that the employee’s hair color did not significantly

More about Unit 7 Kaplan Pa205 Assignment

Open Document