Natalie Attired Case Memorandum

MEMORANDUM

TO: Senior Partner

FROM: Paralegal

DATE: October 10, 2011

RE: Natalie Attired Case – Denial of Unemployment Benefits

Introduction

Ms. Attired, a waitress at Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie, got a full sleeve tattoo on her arm which her employer disliked and said would negatively affect business. She refused, was fired, and is now being denied unemployment benefits. Based on my research and the mandatory authority of the Apodaca case, I believe the court will have no other choice but to decide in favor of our client and restore her unemployment benefits. Apodaca, 769 P.2d 88 (N.M. 1989)

Facts

Natalie Attired started working at Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie in May, 2009. Ms. Attired received four performance evaluations from the owner during her employment, each showing improvement and listing no major problems with her performance. No employee manual or written policy was provided to govern employee conduct. Ms. Attired got a full-sleeve tattoo which covered the entire upper right arm in June of 2010. The lower portion of the tattoo could be seen below the short sleeve work uniform. Another waitress had warned Ms. Attired before she got the tattoo that she could be fired. Ms. Baker informed Ms. Attired that if she did not remove the tattoo, she would be fired. After refusing to remove the tattoo, Ms. Attired worked the rest of the week and was fired on Friday. Ms. Baker said that the “more mature” clientele would be “appalled and disgusted” by Ms. Attired’s tattoo, leading to a decline in sales, but she was unable to provide proof of any decline. She did provided the names of two customers who requested to be moved from Ms. Attired’s section because of the tattoo. Ms. Attired filed for unemployment compensation in July 2010, but was denied on the grounds that she was terminated for “misconduct” and was therefore ineligible for benefits. Ms. Attired wishes to file a claim against NMESB for wrongfully withholding her...