Assignment For UNIT 6 PA 205memo
Karenromine1_PA-205_01_UNIT #6 ASSIGNMENT E-MAIL (MEMORANDUM)
Professor Heather Valdes
Kaplan University Online
May 11. 2015
TO: Paralegal
FROM: Senior Partner
DATE: 05/11/2015
RE: Our new client Natalie Attired; denial of unemployment benefits for alleged Misconduct
STATEMENT OF FACT:
Natalie Attired is our new client. Natalie was denied her unemployment benefits because she was terminated because of “misconduct.” Natalie wants to file a claim against the NMESB for withholding her unemployment benefits unfairly. Natalie started working for Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie in May, 2009. During her employment Ms. Baker the girls and evaluation with total to four, which she was improving continuously. Ms. Baker had no employee handbook, manual, or written rules or regulations. In June, 2010, Natalie got a full shoulder tattoo which covered the entire right arm and the lower part-of the arm was exposed, when she wore the short sleeve uniform. The owner. Ms. Baker told Natalie that she had have the tattoo removed or she would be terminated. Natalie refused to remove the tattoo, worked the rest of the week and she was terminated on Friday. Ms. Baker was unable to prove that there was a loss of sales or profits, while Natalie worked. Ms. Baker did have the names of the two customers that complained wanted moved out of Natalie section. Natalie did file for her unemployment benefits in July of 2010, when she was denied on the grounds of misconduct when she was terminated for “misconduct” and were, therefore was ineligible for benefits.
QUESTIONS:
1). Can Ms. Baker prove that is had a loss of sales and profits?
2). Does Natalie refusing to remove her tattoo constitute misconduct under ss 59-9-5(B)N.M.S.A. 1953)?
3). Had Natalie done and other acts of misconduct that would constitute the “last straw” doctrine?
BRIEF ANSWER:
1). Ms. Baker could not prove any loss of sales or profits.
2). No, Natalie refusing to remove her tattoo alone doesn’t show
Professor Heather Valdes
Kaplan University Online
May 11. 2015
TO: Paralegal
FROM: Senior Partner
DATE: 05/11/2015
RE: Our new client Natalie Attired; denial of unemployment benefits for alleged Misconduct
STATEMENT OF FACT:
Natalie Attired is our new client. Natalie was denied her unemployment benefits because she was terminated because of “misconduct.” Natalie wants to file a claim against the NMESB for withholding her unemployment benefits unfairly. Natalie started working for Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie in May, 2009. During her employment Ms. Baker the girls and evaluation with total to four, which she was improving continuously. Ms. Baker had no employee handbook, manual, or written rules or regulations. In June, 2010, Natalie got a full shoulder tattoo which covered the entire right arm and the lower part-of the arm was exposed, when she wore the short sleeve uniform. The owner. Ms. Baker told Natalie that she had have the tattoo removed or she would be terminated. Natalie refused to remove the tattoo, worked the rest of the week and she was terminated on Friday. Ms. Baker was unable to prove that there was a loss of sales or profits, while Natalie worked. Ms. Baker did have the names of the two customers that complained wanted moved out of Natalie section. Natalie did file for her unemployment benefits in July of 2010, when she was denied on the grounds of misconduct when she was terminated for “misconduct” and were, therefore was ineligible for benefits.
QUESTIONS:
1). Can Ms. Baker prove that is had a loss of sales and profits?
2). Does Natalie refusing to remove her tattoo constitute misconduct under ss 59-9-5(B)N.M.S.A. 1953)?
3). Had Natalie done and other acts of misconduct that would constitute the “last straw” doctrine?
BRIEF ANSWER:
1). Ms. Baker could not prove any loss of sales or profits.
2). No, Natalie refusing to remove her tattoo alone doesn’t show