Pa 205

MITCHELL (Plaintiff) v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC.; Mr. Smith (Defendant)

Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc., 555 p.2d 696 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976)

Procedual History:

Plaintiff applies for unemployment compensation benfits.

Plaintiff was denied the seven weeks of unemployment benfits by District Court.

Plaintiff filed appeal.

Issue:

The Issue before us is whether the Plaintiff's actions consituted misconduct so as to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benfits under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A1953.

Facts:

Plaintiff and Mr. Smith enagaged in a verbal argument started by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff verbally attached defendant as well as another co-worker.

Defendant argues that these events were the last of a series of acts of misconduct.

Plaintiff was fired on the ground of misconduct.

Plaintiff argues that the events her termination day do not constitute misconduct.

Rule Of Law:

Under the Unemployment Compensation Law, termination on the grounds of misconduct deny employee the right to unemployment benefits.

However, tne Unemployment Compensation Law did not have a definition of misconduct, so in the case of Boynton Cab Co. V. Neubeck, the Iwsconsin Supreme Court formulated the definition of misconduct that the state of New Mexico's Unemployment Compensation Law adopted.

Reasoning:

Court finds that Plaintiff's insubordination, improper attire and name calling are wilful disregard to Defenants definition of misconduct.

Plaintiff's interaction with Defendant and other co-workers proved her insubordination.

Since Plaintiff was terminated on ground of misconduct, she cannot, as a matter of law, recieve unemployment benefits.

Holding:

Court reverses the decision from lower court to be in favor of the Defendant since the Plaintiff's actions could be qualified as insubordinate and demonstrating misconduct.