Mitchell V. Lovington Good Samaritan Center Case Study
Case Brief 1:
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89 N.M. 575, 555 P.2d 696 (1976)
One similarity between this case and the client interview facts is that due to misconduct, both Zelma Mitchell and Natalie Attired were terminated from their jobs.
One difference between this case and the client interview facts is that Zelma Mitchell had a pattern of misconduct; Natalie Attired’s employer stated in various employee evaluations that she had corrected her weak areas of development, however, she then got a full-sleeve tattoo covering her upper right arm. The lower portion of her tattoo could still be seen so her employer asked that she remove the tattoo, but she refused to remove her tattoo resulting in her termination.
The
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89 N.M. 575, 555 P.2d 696 (1976)
One similarity between this case and the client interview facts is that due to misconduct, both Zelma Mitchell and Natalie Attired were terminated from their jobs.
One difference between this case and the client interview facts is that Zelma Mitchell had a pattern of misconduct; Natalie Attired’s employer stated in various employee evaluations that she had corrected her weak areas of development, however, she then got a full-sleeve tattoo covering her upper right arm. The lower portion of her tattoo could still be seen so her employer asked that she remove the tattoo, but she refused to remove her tattoo resulting in her termination.
The