To: Senior Partner
Re: Natalie Attired Legal Memorandum #12345
Date: April 10, 2012
Was Natalie’s Tattoo really going to cause the “more mature” clientele to be “appalled and disgusted” and wanting to be waited on by another waitress? 2.
Does Ms. Baker have anything in writing at the time of her firing Ms. Attired? 3.
Was Natalie Attired’s unemployment benefits rightfully terminated?
According to Ms. Baker, Natalie’s tattoo would lead to a decline in sales. Although Ms. Baker was not able to provide the documents to support this. Ms. Bakers did provide the names of two longtime customers who indeed did request different tables. 2.
All that Ms. Attired was aware of was the four different evaluations that she received which didn’t show any signs of misconduct. Also these evaluations showed that Ms. Attired worked at her job and that she tried to do the right thing. At the time of Ms. Attired employment there was no manual or anything that said that she could not get a tattoo. 3.
Ms. Natalie’s unemployment benefits were unrightfully terminated due to the fact that she did not have any patterns of “misconduct”.
Ms. Attired was not given a direct order or directive that she could not get a tattoo. She was also not provided with any other options to cover her tattoo. She was told that she had to remove it or she would be fired. Natalie would like to know if she has a claim against the NMESB for wrongfully withholding her unemployment compensation. Ms. Attired did not have patterns of misconduct and was wrongfully fired.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document