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 holding from Mitchell could be applied to the facts in the client interview via--the holding in Mitchell is: The decision of the district court is reversed and the decision of the Unemployment Security Commission (USC) is reinstated. (The USC found Mitchell was disqualified from seven weeks of unemployment benefits). How does this decision apply to the facts given us in the client interview document? The Mitchell court adopted a definition of misconduct, from the WI Supreme Court, for the New Mexico courts to use. Mrs. Mitchell's compiled list of misconduct was determined to be a willful disregard on her part of the interests of the Lovington Good Samaritan Center.
Natalie Attired's misconduct was getting a large tattoo without knowing if her employer approved of tattoos, then disregarding her employer's request to get the tattoo removed. The facts in Mitchell involved a series of acts that the New Mexico court determined to be misconduct as defined via the definition adopted by the New Mexico court for misconduct. Ms. Attired's misconduct seems to be one act of getting a large tattoo. Ms. Attired's employee evaluations show she made progress in all other areas of development as expressed on the evaluation forms. Mitchell...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document