Hollinger 1 Running Head: Unit 7

Unit 7 Statute, Discussion, Conclusion Dawn Hollinger Kaplan University

PA205-01 February 7, 12 Professor Paige

Hollinger 2 Statute: We need to file the appeal citing the case law of 769 P. 2d 88 New Mexico 1989. Discussion: In the above case the term misconduct was defined as: [M]isconduct * * * is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employers 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. * * * [M]ere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed misconduct within the meaning of the statute. I believe Natalie falls under this definition because it was only an isolated incident in which she made a good faith error in judgment. She wasnt willfully negligent nor was it a continued recurrence. Also Ms. Baker could produce no real proof that her profits would fall, because after two comments by customers she fired Natalie. Those same customers didnt leave after seeing the tattoo, instead they moved to another section. They were still patrons of the establishment and in no way did this reflect on the profits made. Conclusion: I believe Natalie was wrongly refused unemployment benefits. We have a solid case against the board and should be given unemployment upon appeal.