In the case of Natalie Attired, I have looked over the three above cases.

In my case Natalie was fired for a half sleeve tattoo. Other than that fact she was a good employee in the tea house. She did have some issues that she worked on to achieve better performance evaluations. There was no written manual in the tea house that informed her she wasnt allowed to have exposed tattoos, and there was no proof of a decline in profits. According to Ms Baker the only way this could be resolved was by having an expensive painful procedure to remove it, or by termination. Natalie refused to have the tattoo removed so Ms. Baker fired her. In the first case, 555 P.2d 696, S.C. New Mexico, 1976, the employer fired the employee for continued misconduct. In this case there was prior disciplinary action and misconduct. The major difference in this case would be the fact that there was a written handbook for employees detailing what would constitute a firing. I think the only true similarity in the case is the fact that one employee is trying to warn another of what may happen if they continue on a specific course. In the second case, 764 p. 2d 1316 New Mexico, 1988, the woman was fired after her third corrective action. In this case the woman was written up for her boyfriends causing problems at the work place. In this case the difference is that the employee couldnt control what the boyfriend was doing. The similarity is that in both cases the issue causing firing was directly related to the goings on in the employees personal lives, and how that transferred into work. In the third case, 769 p. 2d 88, New Mexico 1989, The employer fired the employee because of a change in physical appearance. The difference here was that the change was

something that was easy to put back, hair instead of tattoo, and there was a handbook outlining personal hygiene. The similarity is the fact that both women refused to change what they had done to themselves in order to keep their job. Also that both women had not had prior disciplinary actions taken against them. In my clients case I would probably lean more towards the third case when using case law to file a suit against the states unemployment board.