Kaplan 101

Tajada Anderson

Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing

PA 205

January 20, 2014

To: Paralegal

From: Managing Attorney

Date: January 20, 2014

Subject: Our new client Natalie Attired; denial of unemployment benefits for alleged misconduct

Statement of Facts: Natalie Attired began working at Biddy’s Tea House in May of 2009. While employed at Biddy's Tea House, Natalie received four evaluations, none of which were extremely negative. Biddy's Tea House did not have an employee manual or written policy about employee conduct. In June 2010, Natalie got a full length tattoo which covered the entire upper right arm. The lower portion of Natalie's arm could be seen in a short sleeve shirt. Ms. Baker, the owner of Biddy's Tea House, told Natalie that if she did not remove the tattoo she would be fired. Natalie refused to remove the tattoo. Natalie continued to work the rest of the week and was terminated on Friday. Ms. Baker commented her customers would be disgusted by the appearance of Natalie's tattoo and would eventually cause sales to decrease. Ms. Baker did not have proof sales declined during the period of time Natalie worked with the visible tattoo. In July 2010, Natalie filed for unemployment compensation and was later denied on the grounds that she was terminated for misconduct and was declared ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Questions:

Did Natalie's failure to remove her tattoo when instructed to do so by Ms. Baker constitute “misconduct” as defined by N.M. Stat. Ann. §51-1-7.

Is Ms. Baker able to provide proof that Natalie’s tattoos negatively affected business and caused a reduction in sales and profits?

Answers:

Natalie’s refusal to remove her tattoo does not constitute misconduct because there was no employee manual rule forbidding tattoos.

Ms. Baker was not able to provide proof of a decline in sales or profits during the time...