Natalie Attired worked at Biddy’s for one twelvemonth when she was fired for acquiring a arm tattoo on her upper right arm. Natalie was fired because Ms. Biddy claimed that she her visual aspect was upseting the clients while they were seeking to eat.
There is no employee manual or written policy about employee behavior. Natalie while for unemployment in July 2010 but was denied because she was terminated for “misconduct. ” Biddy’s has been in for over 20 old ages and is run by Biddy Baker. age 60. Biddy evaluates her waitress’ public presentation every three months.Questions Presented:Was Natalie’s tattoo in fact a distraction to the clients in the eating house? Were there any guidelines in topographic point that would in fact tell Natalie that she was in misdemeanor of the frock codification? Did Ms.
Biddy talk to her employee about how she wants at that place to show themselves while at work? Brief Answers:Two clients complained that Natalie’s tattoo was deflecting. There were non any guidelines or employee enchiridion that stated was acceptable or non acceptable. Ms. Biddy did measure her employees every 3 months but in the ratings she did non province how she wanted her employees to show themselves. Rules that Apply:Harmonizing to the New Mexico Statutes Annotated. § 51-1-7 § 51-1-7. Disqualification for benefits A. An single shall be disqualified for and shall non be eligible to have benefits: ( 1 ) if it is determined by the division that the person left employment voluntarily without good cause in connexion with the employment.
However. a individual shall non be denied benefits under this paragraph:( 2 ) if it is determined by the division that the person has been discharged for misconduct connected with the individual’s employment. Besides in 555 P.
2d 696 Supreme Court of New Mexico. Zelma M. MITCHELL.
Plaintiff-Appellee. v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER. INC.
. Defendant-Appellant. No. 10847. Oct. 27.
1976. ‘misconduct’ . . . is limited to carry on expressing such wilful or motiveless neglect of an employer’s involvements as is found in calculated misdemeanors or neglect of criterions of behaviour which the employer has the right to anticipate of his employee.
or in sloppiness or carelessness of such grade or return as to attest equal blameworthiness. unlawful purpose or evil design or to demo an knowing and significant neglect of the employer’s involvements or of the employee’s responsibilities and duties to his employer. On the other manus mere inefficiency. unsatisfactory behavior. failure in good public presentation as the consequence of inability or incapacity. unmindfulnesss or ordinary carelessness in stray cases.
or good religion mistakes in judgement or discretion are non to be deemed ‘misconduct’ within the significance of the legislative act. Analysis:Harmonizing to the definition of misconduct as stated above Ms. Attried did non in fact get fired for misconduct she did in fact acquire fired because Ms.
Biddy felt her tattoo was a hinder to her concern. In Natalie’s ratings she was evaluated as a good employee who merely needed to larn a few things to acquire her occupation skills up to par. Nowhere is it stated that she did anything to do her employer have to take negative action against her.
She was ever on clip for work. she was pleasant with the clients. and she normally gets all the orders. Decision:Natalie was wrongly denied her unemployment benefits because she does non suit the standards to be denied because of misconduct. She did execute her occupation to the best or her cognition and there was no enchiridion to guarantee that she was incorrect about acquiring the tattoo. If Ms. Biddy wants her employees to carry on themselves a certain manner she should supply guideline to guarantee that they in fact know what is expected of them.
Natalie should be able to have her benefits and should hold them backtracked to her original file day of the month of unemployment.