Apodaca applied for unemployment benefits. It was initially determined that she was ineligible for compensation due to misconduct. She appealed to the Department’s Board of Review, who decided that refusing to return her hair to a natural color did not constitute misconduct. The Employer filed a certiorari with the District court who overturned the review board’s decision. This appeal followed.
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89 NM 575, 555 P.2d 696 (1976) Facts: June 4, 1974, Zelma Mitchell was terminated for misconduct from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. June 12, 1974, Zelma Mitchell applied from unemployment benefits and was not granted it because of her termination for misconduct. On July 24, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell filed an appeal and the Appeal Tribunal reversed the decision and was reinstated for benefits on August 28, 1974. Lovington appealed the Tribunal's decision and again the decision was reversed and Mrs. Mitchell was disqualified. Mrs. Mitchell applied for and was granted certiorari and the District Court reversed and reinstated benefits to Mrs. Mitchell on January 16, 1976. Issue: Zelma Mitchell, the petitioner's actions constituted misconduct so to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benefits.
The four remaining owners suffered a loss when the bar was destroyed due to Coleman’s actions. 3) Should Software Inc. be held liable for damages caused by Coleman in the suit brought by John? John was struck in the eye by Coleman and suffered severe eye damage. 4) Was Coleman a victim of wrongful termination? Coleman was terminated without an exit interview as required by Software Inc’s handbook.
2. The instructions were too vague, in the court’s view, to allow a jury to find obstruction of justice had really occurred. The court found that the instructions were worded in such a way that Andersen could have been convicted without any proof that the firm knew it had broken the law or that there had been a link to any official proceeding that prohibited the destruction of documents. 3. During that time I do believe that the Supreme Court’s opinion in overturning the lower court’s decision was appropriate.
To: Chief Executive Officer From: Bruno Mars, Elementary Division Manager As you are aware we have had a claim filed against our company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our former employee is stating that our new work schedules of four days on and four days off is discriminatory because it requires employees to work on religious holy days and therefore is constructive discharge. I want to first discuss what constructive discharge actually is and why it is relevant to this situation. Constructive discharge occurs when an employer’s actions make the workplace so unacceptable that any reasonable employee would have found it necessary to quit if they were facing the same scenario. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Fact: In 1998, Brenda Evans (plaintiff appellant) terminated her employment at Eaton Corporation (defendant appellant) and filed for long-term disability benefits. Eaton Corporation, a multinational manufacturing company that funds and oversees long-term disability benefits plans for its employees, terminated Ms. Evans's benefits in 2004 based on controversial issues pertaining to her medical reports. Ms. Evans sued under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to recover her benefits. The medication that Ms. Evans was prescribed improved her rheumatoid arthritis, yet she still complained of sever back pain from a previous car accident. Her doctors confirmed that these medical problems resulted in her being totally disable.
P disputed their claims on the basis that “the agreement to arbitrate was unenforceable.” P filed individual and class counterclaims against D for “violations of Title VII and for a declaration that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable against the class.” In response, D requested that the district court halt further legal process on the counterclaims until after arbitration as required by 9 U.S.C. 16. In March of 1998, the district court rejected this
In December of 1995 Ms. Brzonkala filled suite against Mr. Morrison, Mr. Crawford and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court. The basis for her complaint was that alleged rape by Mr. Morrison and Mr. Crawford was in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 13981, the Violence Against Act (VAWA) Mr. Crawford and Mr. Morrison moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that § 13981’s civil remedy was unconstitutional. DECISIONS BELOW: The district court dismissed the complaint. The court of appeals affirmed and Ms. Brzonkala appealed.
Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Unit 5 Assignment Case Name: Rodman v. New Mexico Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) Facts: Plaintiff employee worked as a unit secretary for defendant employer for nearly eight years. In the course of her employment she was given “three corrective action” notices because she was receiving an inordinate amount of personal telephone calls and visitors at her work station. She was ultimately terminated and applied for unemployment benefits, which were denied. The court decided that due to a “totality of circumstances,” this series of incidents constituted misconduct sufficient to disqualify the plaintiff from receiving benefits.
("Trans World," 2007) Looking to another case in Weathers vs FedEx the decision demonstrates an employee need not use the word “accommodate” or “accommodation” to make a protected request for accommodation to which the employer must respond. Lastly, in reviewing Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook if our former employee did offer us an alternative and our company rejected it then we can cite this case. The case is similar to our current situation except the employee offered an alternative to the employer and the employer rejected it. Legal Recommendation to Avoid Constructive Discharge cases and legal issues around Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of