PA205: Introduction to Legal Writing and Analysis
November 13, 2012
To:| Senior Partner|
From:| Jessica Hopper|
CC:| Senior Partner|
Re:| Our New Client Natalie Attired; denial of Unemployment benefits for alleged misconduct| Facts:In May 2009, Natalie Attired began working at Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie. This company evaluates its employees every three months. There is no employee manual or written policy regarding employee conduct. In June 2010, Natalie got a tattoo which was visible when she wore her short-sleeved uniform. Ms. Biddy was upset about the visibility of her tattoo and informed her that if she did not have the tattoo removed, she would be terminated. Ms. Attired refused to have the tattoo removed and worked the remainder of the week and was given a termination notice on Friday. Ms. Biddy stated that the tattoo would lead to a decline in sales; however, she was not able to provide any proof of decline in sales or profits after Ms. Attired got the tattoo. Ms. Biddy did provide the names of two customers who requested to sit in a different section the day before Natalie was fired stating “who wants to look at that while you’re eating?” Natalie filed for unemployment compensation in July 2010. Her claim was denied by New Mexico Employment Security Board on the grounds that she was terminated for “misconduct;” therefore, she was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Ms. Attired is suing the New Mexico Employment Security Board for wrongfully withholding her unemployment compensation. Issues:The issue is whether or not Ms. Attired’s actions constituted misconduct N.M. Stat. Ann. sec. 59-9-5(b) (1953). Rule: “Misconduct” is a term that is not defined in Unemployment Compensation Law in New Mexico. In Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis.249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed its subsection...