My Essay

Unit 7: Assignment

IRAC Evaluation

Asha Balbachan

Kaplan University

PA205-01

IRAC Evaluation  

Natalie Attired, denial of unemployment benefits for alleged misconduct

Issue:

The issue in this case is whether an employee who refuses to alter her personal appearance to please an employer’s personal beliefs about acceptable community standards has engaged in a misconduct under 59-9- 5 (b). N.M.S.A. 1953

Rule:

N.M. Stat. Ann. §51-1-7(B), Adopted definition of misconduct states: “[M]isconduct” is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employees, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree as to manifest equal culpability. [M]ere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed “misconduct” within the meaning of the statute.

Analysis:

Termination on an isolated incident that does not significantly affect the employer’s business may not form the basis for denial of benefits on the grounds of misconduct. Alonzo v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 101 N.M. 770,772,689 P.2d 286,288 (1984).

Natalie Attired’s refusal to alter her personal appearance to go along with her employer’s personal beliefs about acceptable appearance in community standards does not constitute to misconduct under §51-1-7(B).

Conclusion:

Ms. Baker doesn’t have any written rules or code of conduct for the employees to know what is, or is not tolerated in the work place. So Ms. Baker termination of Ms. Attired for having a tattoo because it breaks the company policy is not valid because no employees have access to such policies, also this is a form of discrimination. Ms. Attired had four good reviews during her...