Legal Memo

legal Memorandum

| Rachael PAttonPA205-02May 29, 2014 |

legal Memorandum

| Rachael PAttonPA205-02May 29, 2014 |

Legal Memorandum

To: Professor Cline

From: Rachael Patton

Date: May 29, 2014

Re: Denial of unemployment benefits for Ms. Attired

Background

Ms. Attired worked for Biddy’s Tea House and House and Croissanterie in Truth or Consequences, N.M. for about 3 months before she got fired. The Tea House had been in business for about 20 years and is run by Ms. Baker; Ms. Baker evaluated her waitresses every three months on their performance. Ms. Attired received four evaluations while she worked there and every time she was evaluated she improved on the areas that were brought to her attention the best she could.

After a while Ms. Attired spoke to her co-worker about getting a tattoo because her boyfriend wanted her to get one. The co-worker who had been working there for about 10 years told her that it was okay if she got a tattoo just as long as it was not visible. Because if her tattoo was visible and Ms. Baker could see it should would be fired. So in June of 2010 Ms. Attired got a tattoo that covered her whole arm from shoulder to the elbow. While this tattoo covered her whole arm only the bottom portion of the tattoo was visible this tattoo covered her whole arm only the bottom portion of the tattoo was visible because of the short-sleeved uniform did not cover it all. Noticing the tattoo on Natalie’s arm Ms. Baker became upset and told Natalie that if the tattoo was not removed she would be fired. Ms. Attired then replied and said that she would not have the tattoo and continued to work there for the rest of the week until she received her termination notice on Friday. However there were no manuals or written policy about employee conduct. Ms. Baker stated that her “more mature clientele who came to her tea house would be appalled and disgusted and therefore would not come back to the tea shop, which in turn would...