Employment and Natalie Essay

Natalie Attired worked at chicks for one year when she was fired for getting a sleeve tattoo on her upper right arm. Natalie was fired because Ms. skirt claimed that she her appearance was disturbing the clients while they were trying to eat. There is no employee manual or written policy about employee digest. Natalie while for unemploy in July 2010 but was denied because she was terminated for misconduct. Biddys has been in for over 20 years and is run by Biddy Baker, age 60. Biddy evaluates her waitress performance every three months.Questions PresentedWas Natalies tattoo in fact a distraction to the customers in the restaurant? Were on that point any guidelines in place that would in fact tell Natalie that she was in violation of the dress code? Did Ms. Biddy talk to her employee about how she wants there to present themselves while at work? Brief AnswersTwo customers complained that Natalies tattoo was distracting. There were not any guidelines or employee handbook that sta ted was accept suitable or not acceptable. Ms. Biddy did evaluate her employees every 3 months but in the evaluations she did not state how she wanted her employees to present themselves. Rules that ApplyAccording to the New Mexico Statutes Annotated, 51-1-7 51-1-7. Disqualification for benefits A. An individual shall be alter for and shall not be eligible to receive benefits (1) if it is determined by the division that the individual left employment voluntarily without honest cause in connection with the employment. However, a person shall not be denied benefits downstairs this paragraph(2) if it is determined by the division that the individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with the individuals employment. Also in 555 P.2d 696 Supreme Court of New Mexico. Zelma M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 10847.Oct. 27, 1976. misconduct . . . is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard o f an employers interests as is found in believe violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or default 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 employers interests or of the employees 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 or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed misconduct in spite of appearance the meaning of the statute. AnalysisAccording to the definition of misconduct as stated above Ms. Attried did not in fact get fired for misconduct she did in fact get fired because Ms. Biddy tangle her tattoo was a hinder to her business. In Natalies evaluations she was evaluate d as a good employee who just postulate to learn a few things to get her job skills up to par. Nowhere is it stated that she did anything to make her employer have got to take negative action against her. She was always on time for work, she was pleasant with the customers, and she usually gets all the orders. final resultNatalie was wrongly denied her unemployment benefits because she does not fit the criteria to be denied because of misconduct. She did perform her job to the best or her knowledge and there was no handbook to ensure that she was wrong about getting the tattoo. If Ms. Biddy wants her employees to conduct themselves a definite way she should provide guideline to ensure that they in fact know what is expected of them. Natalie should be able to receive her benefits and should have them backtracked to her original file date of unemployment.