GRADED PA205 Unit 9 Final Project HeatherBradley
PA205: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing
Prof: Wendi Cline
Kaplan University
January 17, 2015
By,
Heather Leigh Bradley
Natalie Attired Case
Memorandum:
To: Senior Partner
From: Heather Bradley
Re: Attired v. New Mexico Department Labor Employment Security Department, Board
of Review
Date: 01/17/2015
Statement of Facts:
Natalie Attired was employed at Biddy’s as a waitress. Biddy’s evaluates waitress’ performance every three months. Natalie received four evaluations while she was employed there. There is no employee manual or written policy about employee conduct or personal appearance.
June 2010, Ms. Attired got a full-sleeve tattoo. The tattoo covered her entire upper right arm from her shoulder to her elbow. Ms. Attired’s uniform covered part of the tattoo but the lower part of her tattoo, near her elbow was visible when Ms. Attired wore the short-sleeved uniform.
Biddy Baker was upset at this change in Ms. Attired’s appearance and told her that if the tattoo were not removed she would be fired. Ms. Attired refused to remove the tattoo. She worked at Biddy’s for the rest of the week and was given a termination notice on Friday.
Ms. Baker said that the “more mature” clientele who came to her teahouse would be “appalled and disgusted” by Natalie’s tattoo, leading to a decline in sales. However, Ms. Baker was not able to provide any proof that sales or profits declined during the time Natalie worked there. However, she did provide the names of two longtime customers who requested a different table when seated in Natalie’s section the day before she was fired, because “who wants to look at that while you’re eating”.
Question Presented:
Does Ms. Attired changing her personal appearance, by getting a half-sleeve tattoo from shoulder to elbow, constitute the grounds required by New Mexico Statue N.M. Stat. Ann. §51-1-7 as misconduct?
Brief Answer:
Ms. Attired getting a tattoo does not constitute
Prof: Wendi Cline
Kaplan University
January 17, 2015
By,
Heather Leigh Bradley
Natalie Attired Case
Memorandum:
To: Senior Partner
From: Heather Bradley
Re: Attired v. New Mexico Department Labor Employment Security Department, Board
of Review
Date: 01/17/2015
Statement of Facts:
Natalie Attired was employed at Biddy’s as a waitress. Biddy’s evaluates waitress’ performance every three months. Natalie received four evaluations while she was employed there. There is no employee manual or written policy about employee conduct or personal appearance.
June 2010, Ms. Attired got a full-sleeve tattoo. The tattoo covered her entire upper right arm from her shoulder to her elbow. Ms. Attired’s uniform covered part of the tattoo but the lower part of her tattoo, near her elbow was visible when Ms. Attired wore the short-sleeved uniform.
Biddy Baker was upset at this change in Ms. Attired’s appearance and told her that if the tattoo were not removed she would be fired. Ms. Attired refused to remove the tattoo. She worked at Biddy’s for the rest of the week and was given a termination notice on Friday.
Ms. Baker said that the “more mature” clientele who came to her teahouse would be “appalled and disgusted” by Natalie’s tattoo, leading to a decline in sales. However, Ms. Baker was not able to provide any proof that sales or profits declined during the time Natalie worked there. However, she did provide the names of two longtime customers who requested a different table when seated in Natalie’s section the day before she was fired, because “who wants to look at that while you’re eating”.
Question Presented:
Does Ms. Attired changing her personal appearance, by getting a half-sleeve tattoo from shoulder to elbow, constitute the grounds required by New Mexico Statue N.M. Stat. Ann. §51-1-7 as misconduct?
Brief Answer:
Ms. Attired getting a tattoo does not constitute
Citations: Alonzo v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 101 N.M. 770, 772, 689 P.2d 286, 288 (1984) N.M Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) Carter v C. F. Industries v. Long,364 So. 2d 864 (Fla. Dist.Ct. App.1978), cert. denied, 85 N.M. 5, 508 P.2d 1302 (1973) Donovan v Hill, J. (2014). New Mexico Wrongful Termination. Retrieved January 17, 2015, from http://www.freelegalaid.com/nav/new-mexico/employment-law/article/new-mexico-wrongful-termination Mitchell v Moya v.Employment Sec. Comm’n, 80 N.M. 39, 450 P.2d 925 (1969) Newcum v Rolon v Commonwealth Unemployment Comp. Bd.of Review, 59 Pa. Commw. 378, 429 A.2d 1256 (1981). Wallace v. Wanek, 81 N.M. 478, 468 P.2d 879 (Ct.App.1970) Zelma M CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 10847.Oct. 27, 1976.