Legal Paper

1215 Words Jun 13th, 2013 5 Pages
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (1976)
Facts: The Appelle was terminated from the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. On June 4, 1974. On June 12, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits. She was initially disqualified from seven weeks of benefits by a deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission. Mrs. Mitchell then fill an appeal, the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy’s decision. Mrs. Mitchell’s benefits were reinstated on August 28, 1974. On September 13, 1974 the center appealed the decision made by the appeal tribunal to the whole commission.
The commission over ruled the Appeal Tribunal and reinstated the seven week disqualification period. Mrs. Mitchell then applied
…show more content…
At issue is whether the misconduct which warranted the termination rose to the level of misconduct when warrant the denial of unemployment compensation. Rodman recognizes the “last straw” doctrine, but contends that the district court erred in applying the rule in this case because her infractions on February 15 were the result of third parties over whom she had no control.
Rodman contents that she may not be denied unemployment benefits. Where the “last straw” which it led to her termination was not willful and under the employer’s policy, she could not have been discharged at all prior to this final incident.
Issue: If substantial evidence existed that Rodman’s conducted on February the 15. It considered the circumstances including her previous history of personal phone calls and unauthorized visitors, showed a willful disregard for her employee’s interests, and then yes, Rodman’s benefits were properly denied.
Rule: The termination for a series of incidents which was taken together may constitute “misconduct” and is distinguishable for termination for a single incident following one or more corrective action notices. In the latter even, it hold that the “last straw” must demonstrate a willful disregard for the employer’s interests for unemployment benefits to be dined.
Applying: The evidence in this case is amenable to more than one

Related Documents