Natalie Attired Case

464 Words2 Pages
MEMORANDUM To: Senior Partner From: Irish Smith Date: 10/10/2011 Case: Natalie Attired v. New Mexico Employment Security Board (NMESB) Reason: Does Natalie Attired refusal to have tattoo remove fall under misconduct s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953 for unemployment compensation. Facts: Natalie Attired worked for Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie as a waitress. Since her employment she has received four evaluations one every three months. Each one showed improvement and reaching the owners expectations. On June 2010 Ms. Attired got a full sleeve tattoo coming just below the short sleeve work uniform were it was visible. Upon the owner seeing the tattoo the owner, Mrs. Biddy Baker told Ms. Attired she would have to it removed. Ms. Attired refused to do so. She worked the rest of the week on Friday she was dismissed from her employment due to misconduct s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953. When Ms. Attired was hired there was no employee…show more content…
Attired refusal to remove her tattoo constitutes misconduct under s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953? 2) Does Ms. Attired personal record show anything that would constitute the last straw doctrine? Can be found under misconduct s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953. 3) Besides the two longtime customers can Mrs. Baker prove the loss of sales due to Mrs. Attired tattoo? Brief Answer: 1) No, because how can an employer claim misconduct if there is no handbook or written policy on dress code or one’s appearance. 2) No, Because Ms. Attire was never reprimanded or written up for misconduct. 3) No, If we take a look at the evaluation enclosed Ms. Attire was improving her work skills and was following the advice of her employer of developing and fine tuning her work skills. References e-mail – To be used for Legal Memorandum (Units 6-9) Client Interview – To be used for Unit 4 and for Legal Memorandum (Units 6-9) Introduction to legal Memorandum Unit 6 power

More about Natalie Attired Case

Open Document