Natalie Attired Legal Memo

687 Words3 Pages
Legal Memo Sara Thompson Kaplan University Intro to Legal Analysis and Writing PA205 Prof Heather Valdes To: Attorney Valdes From: Paralegal Sara Thompson Date: 7/18/2015 Re: Our new client Natalie Attired; denial of unemployment benefits for alleged misconduct. Statement of Facts: Natalie Attired was a waitress at Biddys Tea House. In July, 2010 Natalie Attired filed for unemployment benefits in which she was denied for alleged misconduct. In May, 2009 Natalie Attired began employment at Biddy’s Tea house. During her time there she was given work performance evaluations every 3 months. Attired received a total of four evaluations while she worked at Biddy’s. On her evaluations she received no reprimands or negative comments, only notes of increasing improvement. In June, 2010 Natalie Attired received a tattoo covering her whole upper right going down to her elbow. The lower part of the tattoo could be seen as it was not completely covered by her work uniform. The owner of Biddy’s Tea House, Ms. Baker was upset by Natalie’s changed appearance and advised Natalie Attired that if she did not remove the tattoo that she would be fired. Attired refused to remove her tattoo and was terminated from Biddy’s Tea House on the grounds of misconduct. Owner Ms. Baker acknowledged that there is no employee handbook or work policy entailing work conduct or attire. Baker was also unable to prove a loss in sales during the time Natalie Attired was employed. The only information Baker was able to provide was the request of two patrons to move out of Attired’s section as they were offended by her tattoos. Issue/Question Presented: Is Natalie Attired’s refusal to remove her tattoo as instructed by her employer considered misconduct as defined by New Mexico Statute § 51-1-7? Brief Answer: No. Attired’s refusal to remove her tattoo does not constitute

More about Natalie Attired Legal Memo

Open Document