Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing
PA205: Unit 7 Assignment
Suzette N Pryce
October 14, 2014
TO: Professor Patrick Cleveland
FROM: Suzette N Pryce
DATE: October 14, 2014
RE: Our new client Natalie Attired; denial of unemployment benefits for alleged misconduct
The first issue presented in this case is whether Natalie is entitled to unemployment compensation and should the New Mexico Employment Security Board (NMESB) have granted her this compensation. An employee can be dismissed if it is determined that the individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with the individual's employment. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 51-1-7 (2013).
The second issue to consider is whether Biddy’s unconstitutionally dismissed Natalie. A reasonable timeframe within which to remove the tattoo should have been given, because of the exigency of the job.
The next issue to consider is whether Natalie’s attire caused Biddy’s to lose clientele and sales. Apodaca v. New Mexico Emp’t. Sec. Dep’t., 769 P.2d 88 (N.M. 1989).
The fact that there were no employee manual and or guidelines to follow, Natalie should have been given written warnings, and these warnings placed on her file.
Her evaluation improved somewhat with areas needing further improvement. Natalie was learning to use a new cash register as well. She was improving on the job which showed in her quarterly evaluations.
Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie owe Natalie the right to an employee manual and company policy. Also Biddy’s should have shown Natalie reasonable care before her dismissal, by giving her the opportunity to improve her attire.
There was no proof that Biddy’s lost sales because of Natalie’s attire, therefore she should have been given a realistic timeframe to remove the tattoo.
Termination of an employee for an isolated incident which does not significantly affect the
employers’ business may not form the basis for...