Case Studies
Mitchell v Lovington Good Samaritan Center, INC., 555 P.2d 696 (N.M.Sup.Ct.1976).
Facts: On July 4, 1972, Mrs. Mitchell started working at the Center in Lovington as a nurse’s aid. After being there for a year, she had additional duties at to her work load. She now served as a relief medications nurse two days out of the week. Mrs. Mitchell was starting to act out. She had an argument with the head nurse, Mrs. Stroope, in a crowded area of the Center. There was an incident where Mrs. Mitchell came to work out of uniform. On that particular day the Federal Regulation Inspectors were there for a visit. She was told to go home and change, but she refused to do so. The next day she came back into work out of uniform. She was told to go home and change, but this time she did as she was told. On May 24, 1974, she was switched from medications to the floor routine. She was angry and refused to hand out medication. She refused to perform her duties from May to June 4. Mrs. Mitchell was fired on June 4, 1974. Mr. Smith, which is her boss, paid her for that day, a week’s vacation, and another week’s of salary.
Issue: Can Mrs. Mitchell be award unemployment compensation if she violated rules in the work, which would lead to misconduct?
Rules: Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) “. . . ‘misconduct’ . . . is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies
Facts: On July 4, 1972, Mrs. Mitchell started working at the Center in Lovington as a nurse’s aid. After being there for a year, she had additional duties at to her work load. She now served as a relief medications nurse two days out of the week. Mrs. Mitchell was starting to act out. She had an argument with the head nurse, Mrs. Stroope, in a crowded area of the Center. There was an incident where Mrs. Mitchell came to work out of uniform. On that particular day the Federal Regulation Inspectors were there for a visit. She was told to go home and change, but she refused to do so. The next day she came back into work out of uniform. She was told to go home and change, but this time she did as she was told. On May 24, 1974, she was switched from medications to the floor routine. She was angry and refused to hand out medication. She refused to perform her duties from May to June 4. Mrs. Mitchell was fired on June 4, 1974. Mr. Smith, which is her boss, paid her for that day, a week’s vacation, and another week’s of salary.
Issue: Can Mrs. Mitchell be award unemployment compensation if she violated rules in the work, which would lead to misconduct?
Rules: Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) “. . . ‘misconduct’ . . . is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies