769 p 2d 88 lucy apodaca

However, in order for misconduct connected with his work to be found, it must be determined that the claimant knew, or should have known of the rule and that the rule was reasonable and enforced.

The handbook said nothing specific about hair color. In Julystill concerned with possible theft, the employer instituted a policy whereby all members of management were prohibited from opening or closing the store unaccompanied by another employee.

Subscribe Annotate this Case P. She was then terminated and applied for unemployment benefits. A determination by the Board of Review of the New Mexico Employment Security Department awarding unemployment compensation to Lucy Apodaca was reversed by the district court on certiorari.

Alonzo should be compared with Trujillo v. In support of this conclusion the court found that it was company policy that managerial employees not open or close a store alone and that Sanchez was aware of this rule.

In re Apodaca, N.

Pena did not at first take the question seriously. See also Thornton v. After several weeks, Apodaca went ahead and dyed her hair. Further, when Sanchez disconnected the burglar alarm and did not reconnect it upon leaving the store he left the employer vulnerable to theft.

In order to hold that this incident rose to the level of misconduct the district court had to conclude that the conduct constituted a willful and wanton violation of a reasonable and known rule. They discovered that the alarm system for both the front and back doors of the store had been turned off.

Because of this, in February the employer hired a security officer to conduct an investigation of what was apparently an ongoing inventory theft problem.

In Re Claim of Apodaca

The standard of review of agency determinations is the "whole record" standard. This definition had been used by the Department in In re Apodaca, where we stated: Because we conclude that the court erred in this determination, it is unnecessary for us to examine the findings and conclusions adopted by the court.

The use of the term "or" implies that any breach of the employment contract sufficient to warrant discharge of the employee serves as adequate grounds for denial of benefits, whether or not the employee acted in a willful or wanton manner.P.2d 88 () In re Claim of Lucy APODACA.

IT'S BURGER TIME, INC., Petitioner-Appellee, v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT, BOARD OF REVIEW and Lucy Apodaca, Respondents-Appellants. New Mex. Dep't of Labor Emp't & Sec. Department, Bd. of Review, & Lucy Apodaca, P.2d 88 (N.M.

). FACTS: Apodaca was employed as a counter helper from August to August with It's Burger Time, Inc. (Burger Time)/5(1). Mitchell v Rodman v Apodaca Essays and Research Papers. Search. Rodman v New Mexico Review and Lucy Apodaca P. 2d 88 () receiving benefits.

Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc facts. P.2d 88Supreme Court of New mint-body.com re Claim of Lucy mint-body.com’S BURGER TIME, INC., Petitioner–Appellee,mint-body.com - Answered by a verified Lawyer.

Sanchez v.



P.2d Citation: Claim of Apodaca, P.2d 88 (N.M. ) Facts: Lucy Apodaca was employed as a counter helper from August to August with It’s Burger Time, Inc. There are no complaints concerning her performance of her work.

She approached her store manager on many occasions asking about dying her hair purple. The store manager informed Apodaca .

769 p 2d 88 lucy apodaca
Rated 4/5 based on 64 review