Claim of Apodaca, 769 P.2d 88 (N.M. 1989)
Procedural History:
A writ of certiorari was filed by the employee in order to challenge the award of unemployment insurance. The employer filed this certiorari to the Employment Security Department. Certiorari was filed by the employer in order to challenge the award of unemployment insurance. District denied benefits, in the employee appeal. The Supreme Court decided that the employment should be awarded. Employer appeals.
Facts:
Lucy Apodaca was employed by Its Burger Time Inc. as a counter helper from August 1986 to August 1987. There were no complaints regarding her performance at work. She approached her boss and asked if he would mind if she dyed her hair purple. He did not take her seriously, and never replied. Several weeks later she dyes her hair purple. McGrath, her employer said that if she wanted her job then she had to decide in one week whether or not she would dye her hair back to the normal color. He referred her to the employee handbook which said …show more content…
Rule:
No. A fast-food restaurant employee's refusal to retint her purple hair does not constitute misconduct justifying denial of unemployment compensation where there was no evidence that color of hair significantly affected employer's business.
Application/Analysis:
The court determined that the claimant could not prove that It’s Burger Time Inc. had lost customers due to Apodaca’s appearance. Additionally, since the changing of one’s hair color was not indicated as against the rules of the company’s handbook, her action did not amount to misconduct under NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-7. Additionally, Apodaca did not have a history of infractions leading up to the termination, as such; she did not commit misconduct as defined in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc.
Procedural History:
A writ of certiorari was filed by the employee in order to challenge the award of unemployment insurance. The employer filed this certiorari to the Employment Security Department. Certiorari was filed by the employer in order to challenge the award of unemployment insurance. District denied benefits, in the employee appeal. The Supreme Court decided that the employment should be awarded. Employer appeals.
Facts:
Lucy Apodaca was employed by Its Burger Time Inc. as a counter helper from August 1986 to August 1987. There were no complaints regarding her performance at work. She approached her boss and asked if he would mind if she dyed her hair purple. He did not take her seriously, and never replied. Several weeks later she dyes her hair purple. McGrath, her employer said that if she wanted her job then she had to decide in one week whether or not she would dye her hair back to the normal color. He referred her to the employee handbook which said …show more content…
Rule:
No. A fast-food restaurant employee's refusal to retint her purple hair does not constitute misconduct justifying denial of unemployment compensation where there was no evidence that color of hair significantly affected employer's business.
Application/Analysis:
The court determined that the claimant could not prove that It’s Burger Time Inc. had lost customers due to Apodaca’s appearance. Additionally, since the changing of one’s hair color was not indicated as against the rules of the company’s handbook, her action did not amount to misconduct under NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-7. Additionally, Apodaca did not have a history of infractions leading up to the termination, as such; she did not commit misconduct as defined in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc.