The applicable statute for this case is the N.M Stat. Ann. § 51-1-7 (2011). This case is a matter of rejection of unemployment compensation for Mr. Anderson by the New Mexico Employment Security Board based on the grounds of misconduct and noncooperation for reason of termination from employment.
The N.M Stat. Ann. § 51-1-7 para. A (2) states that an individual is disqualified or ineligible to receive benefits if it is determined by the division that the individual was terminated from work for misconduct in connection with his/her employment. “Misconduct” under the New Mexico Unemployment Compensation Law is not to be given a too expansive meaning. In Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89 N.M. 575, 577, 555, P.2d 696, 698 …show more content…
Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89 N.M. 575, 555, P.2d 696 (1976) and Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P. 2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) demonstrates behavior and repetitive actions of insubordination that is necessary to constitute misconduct. These cases are valuable in proving that Anderson does not meet the requirements of “misconduct” and in addition, the employer did not suffer any financial loss due to Anderson’s change of appearance by getting a full sleeve tattoo. Given the restrictions placed upon Rodman, the Court state that she acted in a willful disregard for her employer’s interest. Anderson’s case is in fact the opposite, considering the facts that Anderson had no written write-ups, restrictions, reprimands and the employer failed to prove the allegations of misconduct.
Conclusion
In the case of Anderson v. New Mexico Employment Security Board, Anderson’s actions did not constitute or meet the definition of “misconduct” as defined by Mitchell and did not demonstrate repetitive insubordination and restrictions as shown in Rodman. Anderson has not displayed actions or behavior constituting misconduct and therefore the decision will be reversed and the case will be returned to the lower court for entry of judgment consistent with the decision of the Board of
The N.M Stat. Ann. § 51-1-7 para. A (2) states that an individual is disqualified or ineligible to receive benefits if it is determined by the division that the individual was terminated from work for misconduct in connection with his/her employment. “Misconduct” under the New Mexico Unemployment Compensation Law is not to be given a too expansive meaning. In Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89 N.M. 575, 577, 555, P.2d 696, 698 …show more content…
Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89 N.M. 575, 555, P.2d 696 (1976) and Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P. 2d 1316 (N.M. 1988) demonstrates behavior and repetitive actions of insubordination that is necessary to constitute misconduct. These cases are valuable in proving that Anderson does not meet the requirements of “misconduct” and in addition, the employer did not suffer any financial loss due to Anderson’s change of appearance by getting a full sleeve tattoo. Given the restrictions placed upon Rodman, the Court state that she acted in a willful disregard for her employer’s interest. Anderson’s case is in fact the opposite, considering the facts that Anderson had no written write-ups, restrictions, reprimands and the employer failed to prove the allegations of misconduct.
Conclusion
In the case of Anderson v. New Mexico Employment Security Board, Anderson’s actions did not constitute or meet the definition of “misconduct” as defined by Mitchell and did not demonstrate repetitive insubordination and restrictions as shown in Rodman. Anderson has not displayed actions or behavior constituting misconduct and therefore the decision will be reversed and the case will be returned to the lower court for entry of judgment consistent with the decision of the Board of