Law and Natalie Attired Case
TO: Alexis Schlamberg
FROM:
RE: Natalie Attired Case
DATE: November 19, 2013
Statement of the Facts
Natalie Attired, 23, was fired from her position as a waitress at Biddy’s Teahouse for having a visible tattoo. The owner, Biddy Baker fired Miss Attired because she would not remove the tattoo and feared that an employee having a tattoo that was visible would upset her more “mature” patrons, which would affect profits. No documentation could be provided that showed a loss of profits. Ms. Baker did state that two patrons asked to be reseated the day before she was terminated.
Natalie stated that there was not an employee handbook or stated to by Ms. Baker that tattoos were not allowed. However, she did state that a co-worker, a year earlier, did tell her to make sure it is placed “where the sun does not shine” because Biddy baker would not be happy.
In July of 2010, Miss Attired applied a claim for unemployment and was denied by the New Mexico Unemployment Security Board because her actions were because of “misconduct”.
Issue
Does Miss Attired’s actions meet the criteria of “misconduct” in NM Stat § 51-1-7 (West)
Short Answer
Rule of law
An individual shall be disqualified for and shall not be eligible to receive benefits:
(2) if it is determined by the division that the individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with the individual's employment; or
Analysis
While the law does state that any employee that is terminated for misconduct will not receive benefits. The question remains does this apply to this case? When examining case law in this area there seems to be a very cut a dry way the courts have ruled. Simply put does the NMUSB have the right to disqualify Miss Attired based on the belief that she was fired for misconduct. The term “misconduct” was established in the Zelma M. Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. Sup. Ct. 1976). The court created a precedent that
FROM:
RE: Natalie Attired Case
DATE: November 19, 2013
Statement of the Facts
Natalie Attired, 23, was fired from her position as a waitress at Biddy’s Teahouse for having a visible tattoo. The owner, Biddy Baker fired Miss Attired because she would not remove the tattoo and feared that an employee having a tattoo that was visible would upset her more “mature” patrons, which would affect profits. No documentation could be provided that showed a loss of profits. Ms. Baker did state that two patrons asked to be reseated the day before she was terminated.
Natalie stated that there was not an employee handbook or stated to by Ms. Baker that tattoos were not allowed. However, she did state that a co-worker, a year earlier, did tell her to make sure it is placed “where the sun does not shine” because Biddy baker would not be happy.
In July of 2010, Miss Attired applied a claim for unemployment and was denied by the New Mexico Unemployment Security Board because her actions were because of “misconduct”.
Issue
Does Miss Attired’s actions meet the criteria of “misconduct” in NM Stat § 51-1-7 (West)
Short Answer
Rule of law
An individual shall be disqualified for and shall not be eligible to receive benefits:
(2) if it is determined by the division that the individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with the individual's employment; or
Analysis
While the law does state that any employee that is terminated for misconduct will not receive benefits. The question remains does this apply to this case? When examining case law in this area there seems to be a very cut a dry way the courts have ruled. Simply put does the NMUSB have the right to disqualify Miss Attired based on the belief that she was fired for misconduct. The term “misconduct” was established in the Zelma M. Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. Sup. Ct. 1976). The court created a precedent that