Claim of Apodaca, 769 P.2d 88 (N.M. 1989)
Procedural History:
A writ of certiorari was filed by the employee in order to challenge the award of unemployment insurance. The employer filed this certiorari to the Employment Security Department. Certiorari was filed by the employer in order to challenge the award of unemployment insurance. District denied benefits, in the employee appeal. The Supreme Court decided that the employment should be awarded. Employer appeals.
Facts:
Lucy Apodaca was employed by Its Burger Time Inc. as a counter helper from August 1986 to August 1987. There were no complaints regarding her performance at work. She approached her boss and asked if he would mind if she dyed her hair purple. He did not take her seriously, and never replied. Several weeks later she dyes her hair purple. McGrath, her employer said that if she wanted her job then she had to decide in one week whether or not she would dye her hair back to the normal color. He referred her to the employee handbook which said nothing specific about hair color. Apodaca informed employer that she had decided to keep her hair purple. She applied for unemployment benefits after she was terminated. She was denied first time for unemployment by the department apparently in eligible for conversation because she refused to conform to the standard a personal grooming under N.M. Stat. § 51–1–7. Issue: Is refusal to alter one’s physical appearance grounds for termination and considered misconduct under NMSA 1978, Section 51–1–7 of the Unemployment Compensation Law? …show more content…
Rule:
No. A fast-food restaurant employee's refusal to retint her purple hair does not constitute misconduct justifying denial of unemployment compensation where there was no evidence that color of hair significantly affected employer's business.
Application/Analysis:
The court determined that the claimant could not prove that It’s Burger Time Inc. had lost customers due to Apodaca’s appearance. Additionally, since the changing of one’s hair color was not indicated as against the rules of the company’s handbook, her action did not amount to misconduct under NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-7. Additionally, Apodaca did not have a history of infractions leading up to the termination, as such; she did not commit misconduct as defined in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. Conclusion: The decision was reversed and unemployment benefits were awarded to Apodaca. Analogizing/Distinguishing: This case and the case involving Natalie Attired both for failing to follow grooming standards for the work place, later changed to misconduct. Apodaca dyed her hair purple which management later stated was not permitted, giving her an option to change her hair color to retain employment. Attired received a sleeve tattoo which showed past her elbow when wearing short sleeved shirts, also given a week to remove to retain employment. Both establishment were unable to prove loss of income due to the personal grooming differences. However, the facts of the Attired case do not support misconduct as she had a means to cover or hide the tattoo. . Application to Client’s Facts: In the case of Apodaca the personal grooming offense qualified as a means for termination, but not as misconduct. As misconduct is defined by the State of New Mexico adopted from the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling neither Attired nor Apodaca showed intentional or substantial disregard for their employer’s interest or a disregard of the employer’s duties. Attired nor Apodaca’s actions brought financial distress to the employer by means of employee disruption or financial loss. Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Sec. Dep't, 764 P.2d 1316 (1988) Facts: Billy Rodman was denied unemployment benefits after being terminated from her position as Unit Secretary at Presbyterian Hospital where she worked for eight years. Hospital staff claim that Mrs. Rodman has violated personnel policy on several occasions and this incident was the final one that caused the termination. It is alleged that Billy Rodham had been warned about receiving personal phone calls on the job and instead of correcting the action it continued, resulting in her termination. Issue: The issue is whether an employee's actions of personnel policy violation, receiving personal phone calls, and leaving the worksite while on duty and other conduct evidencing willful disregard of employer's interests constituted misconduct for denial of unemployment
Procedural History:
A writ of certiorari was filed by the employee in order to challenge the award of unemployment insurance. The employer filed this certiorari to the Employment Security Department. Certiorari was filed by the employer in order to challenge the award of unemployment insurance. District denied benefits, in the employee appeal. The Supreme Court decided that the employment should be awarded. Employer appeals.
Facts:
Lucy Apodaca was employed by Its Burger Time Inc. as a counter helper from August 1986 to August 1987. There were no complaints regarding her performance at work. She approached her boss and asked if he would mind if she dyed her hair purple. He did not take her seriously, and never replied. Several weeks later she dyes her hair purple. McGrath, her employer said that if she wanted her job then she had to decide in one week whether or not she would dye her hair back to the normal color. He referred her to the employee handbook which said nothing specific about hair color. Apodaca informed employer that she had decided to keep her hair purple. She applied for unemployment benefits after she was terminated. She was denied first time for unemployment by the department apparently in eligible for conversation because she refused to conform to the standard a personal grooming under N.M. Stat. § 51–1–7. Issue: Is refusal to alter one’s physical appearance grounds for termination and considered misconduct under NMSA 1978, Section 51–1–7 of the Unemployment Compensation Law? …show more content…
Rule:
No. A fast-food restaurant employee's refusal to retint her purple hair does not constitute misconduct justifying denial of unemployment compensation where there was no evidence that color of hair significantly affected employer's business.
Application/Analysis:
The court determined that the claimant could not prove that It’s Burger Time Inc. had lost customers due to Apodaca’s appearance. Additionally, since the changing of one’s hair color was not indicated as against the rules of the company’s handbook, her action did not amount to misconduct under NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-7. Additionally, Apodaca did not have a history of infractions leading up to the termination, as such; she did not commit misconduct as defined in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. Conclusion: The decision was reversed and unemployment benefits were awarded to Apodaca. Analogizing/Distinguishing: This case and the case involving Natalie Attired both for failing to follow grooming standards for the work place, later changed to misconduct. Apodaca dyed her hair purple which management later stated was not permitted, giving her an option to change her hair color to retain employment. Attired received a sleeve tattoo which showed past her elbow when wearing short sleeved shirts, also given a week to remove to retain employment. Both establishment were unable to prove loss of income due to the personal grooming differences. However, the facts of the Attired case do not support misconduct as she had a means to cover or hide the tattoo. . Application to Client’s Facts: In the case of Apodaca the personal grooming offense qualified as a means for termination, but not as misconduct. As misconduct is defined by the State of New Mexico adopted from the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling neither Attired nor Apodaca showed intentional or substantial disregard for their employer’s interest or a disregard of the employer’s duties. Attired nor Apodaca’s actions brought financial distress to the employer by means of employee disruption or financial loss. Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Sec. Dep't, 764 P.2d 1316 (1988) Facts: Billy Rodman was denied unemployment benefits after being terminated from her position as Unit Secretary at Presbyterian Hospital where she worked for eight years. Hospital staff claim that Mrs. Rodman has violated personnel policy on several occasions and this incident was the final one that caused the termination. It is alleged that Billy Rodham had been warned about receiving personal phone calls on the job and instead of correcting the action it continued, resulting in her termination. Issue: The issue is whether an employee's actions of personnel policy violation, receiving personal phone calls, and leaving the worksite while on duty and other conduct evidencing willful disregard of employer's interests constituted misconduct for denial of unemployment