Natalie Attired Vs. State of New Mexico Legal Memorandum
NATALIE ATTIRED VS. THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO LEGAL MEMORANDUM 1
Natalie Attired’s Vs. The State of New Mexico Legal Memorandum
PA 205 Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing
NATALIE ATTIRED VS THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO LEGAL MEMEORANDUM 2
Natalie Attired Vs. The State of New Mexico Legal Memorandum
Natalie was employed at Biddy’s Teahouse for a period of one year. Natalie had work
performance evaluation every three months by Mrs. Baker, while she was an employee at
Biddy’s Teahouse. Each of these evaluations Natalie received didn’t show any signs of
misconduct. In fact these evaluations showed Natalie to be an employee that tried to do the
right thing and reported to work on time and had good attendance.
Natalie had gotten a tattoo that went up her arm and stopped just below the elbow. This
tattoo is known as a sleeve tattoo and is one in which the uniform could not cover completely.
Mrs. Baker ordered Natalie to immediately remove the tattoo or she would be fired. Mrs. Baker
informed Natalie that tattoos are not part of this establishment that she would lose customers
which would untimely cause a loss in revenue. In addition that tattoos are not part of the
The issues in this case did Mrs. Baker provide proof of Natalie’s appearance having a negative
effect on the business causing sales and profits to go down? If Natalie’s refusal to remove the
tattoo, after instructed to do so by Mrs. Baker constitute misconduct as defined by N.M. STAT.
Ann § 51-1-7. Were Natalie’s unemployment benefits unrightfully terminated as a result of Mrs.
Bakers claims of employee misconduct?
The State of New Mexico didn’t have a definition for misconduct so they adopted one in the
Mitchell V. Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc. 89. N.M. 575,577, 555, P.2d 696,...