Attired Case Summary

435 Words2 Pages
Analogizing/Distinguishing: The similarity between Mrs. Mitchell and Natalie is that they both were fired from their work place. Also both of them filed for unemployment and were denied because they were terminated from their place of employment for misconduct. The difference between them is that Natalie was terminated for her new tattoo whereas Mitchell was terminated for birdbrain considered the ‘last straw’. Another difference is that Natalie did her job well but only two customers complained about her tattoo whereas Mitchell didn’t she refused to do her job and wasn’t very cooperative. Application to Client’s Facts: Due to the differences in the two cases; Natalie should file a claim against the NMESB for unfairly withholding her unemployment…show more content…
Ms. Rodman was terminated because of behavior and personal issues. Attired was terminated because of physical appearnce. Attired has a claim against the New Mexico Empoyment Security Board for withholding her unemployment because there was no employee manual or written policy that designated the conduct that an employee should follow. Analogizing/Distinguishing: The similarity between Apocada and Attired case is that they were both terminated due to the changes in lthe appearance of their bodies. The changes they made didn’t affect the business of their place of employment. They refused to change their appearance back to “normal” in order to keep their jobs. They both filed for unemployment compensation and were denied based on being terminated for misconduct. The difference between the two cases is that Apocada dyed her hair and Attired had a visible tattoo. Application to Client’s Facts: The facts in both cases could not be proven that personal appearance affected the sales of the business. In the Apocada’s case, there was no evidence Apodaca's hair color affected the business at the It's Burger Time. The case against Attired, there was no evidence presented that sales or profits decreased while Attired was employed. Neither case didn’t establish misconduct and both were awared unemployment

More about Attired Case Summary

Open Document