Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, 555 NM P.2d 696 (1976)
Facts: This case was a reversed decision by District Court, Bernalillo County, awarding unemployment benefits to a discharged employee. The denial of benefits was due to employee’s misconduct of insubordination, improper attire, name calling and other employee misconduct that disqualified the employee for unemployment benefits.
Issue: Did the employer’s action constitute misconduct under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953?
Rules: Was there misconduct by the plaintiff and was there cause for disqualification of benefits
Analysis: ...view middle of the document...
Fact: Billie Rodman was reprimanded on two occasions for receiving a large number of phone calls as well as personal visitors at her work station while on duty at Presbyterian Hospital. The final incident happened on February 15, 1987 when she was terminated for leaving her work station twice on this date and receiving large number of phone calls. She also left work on this date for 35 minutes without permission before returning to her work station. However, when she did return the phone calls increased in number as the work shift proceeded. The supervisor was frustrated with the volume of phone calls and it was determined she should be sent home. Thereafter, she was terminated from her job. The Appeals of the Department of Employment Security found that based on the evidence that Mrs. Mitchell proved that she was unwilling to restrict the phone calls or personal visits during work hours that had been set forth on her previous reprimand.
Rules: Was there misconduct by the plaintiff and was there cause for disqualification of benefits under M.M.S.A. 1978, Section 51-1-7(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Analysis: After a third corrective action was Rodman terminated. Rodman was repeatedly reprimanded for her multiple phone calls and personal visits at her work station while on the job in June of 1986. Rodman was disruptive to her co workers.
Conclusion: The decision of the district was affirmed.
Analogizing and Distinguishing: The similarities of this case and my client case are they are both Unemployment compensation cases that involve misconduct at the work place but outside contact was brought into the workplace, even though they were phone call in this case but visits by friends and boyfriend is still a constant distraction interfering with work performance. The differences were the volume of work interruption did not subside in the case here and with my client they did.
Application to Client’s Facts: This client had no basis to be granted a claim for benefits.
It’s Burger Time, INC v. New Mexico Dept. Labor Employment Security Department,...