a
Arsianna Walker
PA205
Unit 9 Final Project
5/26/2015
TO: Senior partner
FROM: Paralegal
DATE: 5/26/2015
RE: Our new client Natalie Attired
Statement of Facts: May 2009, Natalie Attired, started working at Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. The owner of Biddy’s Tea house, Biddy Baker had no employee manual or policy on conduct ever written. June 2010 the Ms. Attired went to work at Biddy’s Tea House with a tattoo sleeve that covered her entire right arm. Ms. Biddy warned that if not removed Ms. Attired would be fired. Ms. Attired refused to do so. Ms. Biddy claims that Ms. Attired’s tattoo and refusal to remove it caused a decline of sales, but could not provide proof. At the end of the work week, on Friday Biddy Baker presented Ms.Attired with a notice of termination for misconduct under New Mexico Employment Security Board. MS. Attired was disqualified for unemployment benefits because of Ms. Baker’s allegations of misconduct.
Question Presented: Whether Ms. Attired’s tattoo, and refusal to remove it, rises to the level of misconduct defined under N.M.S.A. 1978, section 51-1-1-7(B)?
Brief answer: No, Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie had no employee manual, so there was no policy about employee behavior or employee appearance limiting tattoos therefore denying Ms.Attired unemployment was incorrect, under N.M.S.A. 1978, section 51-1-1-7(B).
Applicable Statue: New Mexico Statues Annotated, § 51-1-7
Unemployment Compensation Law of New Mexico states “An individual shall be disqualified for and shall not be eligible to receive benefits: if it is determined by division that the individual left employment voluntarily without good cause in connection with the employment. However, a person shall not be denied benefits under this paragraph: (a) solely on the basis of pregnancy; (b) because of domestic abuse evidenced my medical documentation, legal documentation or sworn statement from the claimant; or (c) if
PA205
Unit 9 Final Project
5/26/2015
TO: Senior partner
FROM: Paralegal
DATE: 5/26/2015
RE: Our new client Natalie Attired
Statement of Facts: May 2009, Natalie Attired, started working at Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie in Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. The owner of Biddy’s Tea house, Biddy Baker had no employee manual or policy on conduct ever written. June 2010 the Ms. Attired went to work at Biddy’s Tea House with a tattoo sleeve that covered her entire right arm. Ms. Biddy warned that if not removed Ms. Attired would be fired. Ms. Attired refused to do so. Ms. Biddy claims that Ms. Attired’s tattoo and refusal to remove it caused a decline of sales, but could not provide proof. At the end of the work week, on Friday Biddy Baker presented Ms.Attired with a notice of termination for misconduct under New Mexico Employment Security Board. MS. Attired was disqualified for unemployment benefits because of Ms. Baker’s allegations of misconduct.
Question Presented: Whether Ms. Attired’s tattoo, and refusal to remove it, rises to the level of misconduct defined under N.M.S.A. 1978, section 51-1-1-7(B)?
Brief answer: No, Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie had no employee manual, so there was no policy about employee behavior or employee appearance limiting tattoos therefore denying Ms.Attired unemployment was incorrect, under N.M.S.A. 1978, section 51-1-1-7(B).
Applicable Statue: New Mexico Statues Annotated, § 51-1-7
Unemployment Compensation Law of New Mexico states “An individual shall be disqualified for and shall not be eligible to receive benefits: if it is determined by division that the individual left employment voluntarily without good cause in connection with the employment. However, a person shall not be denied benefits under this paragraph: (a) solely on the basis of pregnancy; (b) because of domestic abuse evidenced my medical documentation, legal documentation or sworn statement from the claimant; or (c) if