Natalie Attired

INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL ANALYSIS AND WRITING

Thelma Smith

Kaplan University

P205 Unit-5

Introduction To Legal Analysis And Writing

IT’S BURGER TIME, INC, v. N.M. Dept. Of LABOR

MEMORANDUM

To: Senior Partner

From: Paralegal

Date: Nov, 16, 2015

RE: IN re Claim of Lucy APODACA

QUESTION PRESENTED

The issue in this case is whether an employee who refuses to alter her appearance in the conformity with the employer’s personal appearance beliefs about acceptable community standards have engaged in misconduct by N.M. statue § 51-1-7

BRIEF ANSWER

No, APODACA’s refusal to change her hair color back to the original color does not constitute misconduct. There were no company rule or policy in place forbidding hair color change. The owner Keven McGrath has not shown that the color of Apodaca’s hair affected his business.

FACTS

Our client APODACA was employed as a counter helper at IT’S BURGER TIME Restaurant. No prior misconduct or performance with the employer. Dyed hair purple. Ask Supervisor what he thought owner McGrath would say? Supervisor never spoke with McGrath about the matter. The

Introduction To Legal Analysis And Writing

supervisor did not mention the subject again so she went ahead and dyed her hair. Two days later after she changed her hair color McGrath came in the restaurant and when he saw the color of her hair he told the supervisor to tell APODACA to change her hair color back to the original color or lose her job. Owner claims her hair color would affect his business. Applied for unemployment benefits and was denied.

APPLICABLE STATUE

According to N.M. statue §51-1-7 a person is disqualified from receiving unemployment if the termination is the result of misconduct. Misconduct is defined as the willful or wanton disregard of the employer.

DISCUSSION

The issue in this case is whether the lower court erred in concluding that an employee who refuses to alter her personal appearance in the conformity of the employer’s...