Legal Studies
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc., 555 P. 2D 696(1976)
Facts: Zelma Mitchell petitioner-appellee was dismissed from her position at Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc. in June 12, 1974. The said grounds for her dismissal would be misconduct.
Mrs. Mitchell would file for unemployment. Upon the hearing by the deputy of the unemployment security commission it was founded that Mrs. Mitchell was in fact dismissed from her job for misconduct. Seven weeks of payment was forfeited due to this finding according to State guidelines s 59-9-6(B), N.M.S.A.1953. On July 24, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell would file appeal. On August 28, 1974 referee of the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy’s decision and reinstated these benefits to Mrs. Mitchell. On September 13, 1974, the Lovington Good Samaritan Center would file appeal with Appeal Tribunal to the whole Commission pursuant to s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953. The Commission would overrule the first appeal and withhold the seven week pay from Mrs. Mitchell. Mrs. Mitchell filed a motion of certiorari and this was granted to her by Commission to the District Court of Bernalillo County pursuant to s 59-9-6(K), N.M.S.A.1953. On January 16, 1976, this was heard by District Court the ruling was to reinstate Mrs. Mitchell benefits.
Issue: Whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953. That would render Mrs. Mitchell from unemployment benefit payments.
Rule: The term ‘misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation. Under the Wisconsin Supreme Court examined the unemployment compensation act and found no statutory definition of misconduct. But however a formulated definition was placed:
. . . ‘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
Facts: Zelma Mitchell petitioner-appellee was dismissed from her position at Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc. in June 12, 1974. The said grounds for her dismissal would be misconduct.
Mrs. Mitchell would file for unemployment. Upon the hearing by the deputy of the unemployment security commission it was founded that Mrs. Mitchell was in fact dismissed from her job for misconduct. Seven weeks of payment was forfeited due to this finding according to State guidelines s 59-9-6(B), N.M.S.A.1953. On July 24, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell would file appeal. On August 28, 1974 referee of the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy’s decision and reinstated these benefits to Mrs. Mitchell. On September 13, 1974, the Lovington Good Samaritan Center would file appeal with Appeal Tribunal to the whole Commission pursuant to s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953. The Commission would overrule the first appeal and withhold the seven week pay from Mrs. Mitchell. Mrs. Mitchell filed a motion of certiorari and this was granted to her by Commission to the District Court of Bernalillo County pursuant to s 59-9-6(K), N.M.S.A.1953. On January 16, 1976, this was heard by District Court the ruling was to reinstate Mrs. Mitchell benefits.
Issue: Whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953. That would render Mrs. Mitchell from unemployment benefit payments.
Rule: The term ‘misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation. Under the Wisconsin Supreme Court examined the unemployment compensation act and found no statutory definition of misconduct. But however a formulated definition was placed:
. . . ‘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
References: PA205_U3_Case.pdf assignment. http://extmedia.kaplan.edu/legal/PA205/Research_for_Legal_Professionals_KUCustom_Text_Ch05.pdf