the works
Rules: Regarding Natalie Attired (our client) terminated for “misconduct”
An individual shall be disqualified for and shall not be eligible to receive benefits: If it is determined by the division that the individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with the individual's employment.
Application:
**Case 1 - Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976)
Zelma Mitchell was a nurse’s aide and was terminated for alleged misconduct with priors.
In order to establish misconduct the appellee shall indicate no conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior, or carelessness or negligence of such degree for termination.
This case should not apply to our client due to using the wilful and wanton disregard for the employers interest and apply the facts to the rule was adopted due to her continual misconduct knowingly repeating itself.
**Case 2 - Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Sec. Dept. 107 N.M. 758, 764 P.2d 1316, (N.M. 1988).
Rodman was denied unemployment compensation benefits after being terminated under the hospital personnel policies following a “third corrective action” notice due to personal problems adversely impacting her work.
If substantial evidence existed that Rodman’s conduct including her previous history showed a willful or wanton disregard for her employer’s interests.
This case should not apply to our clients’ case due to the conclusion of Rodman v. New Mexico was considered using totality of circumstances and the “last straw” doctrine which would not apply to our client because our client was not reprimanded for any misconduct previous to her termination and our client did not have any employment policies to abide.
Claim of Apodaca 108 N.M. 175, 769 P.2d 88, (N.M. 1989)
Apodaca appeals the district court decision, arguing the court erred in
An individual shall be disqualified for and shall not be eligible to receive benefits: If it is determined by the division that the individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with the individual's employment.
Application:
**Case 1 - Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M. 1976)
Zelma Mitchell was a nurse’s aide and was terminated for alleged misconduct with priors.
In order to establish misconduct the appellee shall indicate no conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior, or carelessness or negligence of such degree for termination.
This case should not apply to our client due to using the wilful and wanton disregard for the employers interest and apply the facts to the rule was adopted due to her continual misconduct knowingly repeating itself.
**Case 2 - Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Sec. Dept. 107 N.M. 758, 764 P.2d 1316, (N.M. 1988).
Rodman was denied unemployment compensation benefits after being terminated under the hospital personnel policies following a “third corrective action” notice due to personal problems adversely impacting her work.
If substantial evidence existed that Rodman’s conduct including her previous history showed a willful or wanton disregard for her employer’s interests.
This case should not apply to our clients’ case due to the conclusion of Rodman v. New Mexico was considered using totality of circumstances and the “last straw” doctrine which would not apply to our client because our client was not reprimanded for any misconduct previous to her termination and our client did not have any employment policies to abide.
Claim of Apodaca 108 N.M. 175, 769 P.2d 88, (N.M. 1989)
Apodaca appeals the district court decision, arguing the court erred in