555 L. 2d 696 Supreme Court docket of New South america. Zelma M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellant. No . 10847. April. 27, 1976. Appeal was taken from an order with the District Court docket, Bernalillo State, Richard W. Traub, D. J., curing a decision of the Unemployment Protection Commission and awarding benefits to released employee. The Supreme Courtroom, Sosa, L., held that employee's insubordination, improper clothes, name phoning and other carry out evidencing wilful disregard of employer's passions constituted вЂmisconduct' disqualifying her from acquiring certain lack of employment benefits. Turned.
Attorneys and Law Firms *576 **697 Heidel, Samberson, Gallini & Williams, Jerry T. Williams, Lovington, for defendant-appellant. Gary M. Martone, M. Richard Baumgartner, Joseph Goldberg, Albuquerque, intended for plaintiff-appellee.
VIEW SOSA, Rights. This case gives the issue of whether petitioner's activities constituted wrong doings so as to disqualify her via certain joblessness compensation rewards. On 06 4, 1974, petitioner-appellee Zelma Mitchell was terminated intended for alleged misconduct from the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. On 06 12, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation rewards. Finding that Mrs. Mitchell's functions constituted wrong doings, a deputy of the Lack of employment Security Commission payment disqualified Mrs. Mitchell coming from seven weeks of benefits pursuant to s i9000 59-9-6(B), In. M. S i9000. A. 1953. On July 24, mid 1970s, Mrs. Mitchell filed a great appeal. The referee in the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy's decision and reinstated these benefits to Mrs. Mitchell in August twenty-eight, 1974. About September 13, 1974, the middle appealed the choice of the Appeal Tribunal for the whole Percentage pursuant to s 59-9-6(E), N. Meters. S. A. 1953. The Commission overruled the Appeal Tribunal and reinstated the seven week disqualification period. Mrs. Mitchell then applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision of the Commission rate to the Section Court of Bernalillo State pursuant to s 59-96(K), N. Meters. S. A. 1953. About January of sixteen, 1976, the District Court docket reversed the Commission's decision and ordered it to reinstate the benefits to Mrs. Mitchell. From the judgment from the District Courtroom, the Center is attractive. The issue before us is whether Mrs. Mitchell's actions constituted misconduct beneath s 59-9-5(b), N. M. S. A. 1953. Mrs. Mitchell started work at the middle in Lovington on This summer 4, 1972 as a nurse's aide. After approximately one year on the job in addition to her normal duties in addition, she served being a relief medications nurse 2 days per week. Upon June four, 1974, the lady was ended. The testimony concerning the occasions leading up to her termination that day is definitely somewhat contradictory but quite simply is the next. Mrs. Mitchell arrived punctually to act on three l. m. The director in the Center, Mister. Smith, inhibited her about why the lady was already filling in her period card. Mrs. Mitchell clarified that your woman filled in ten hours, which will she would operate that time as long as the lady did not вЂbreak a lower leg or die. ' Mister. Smith replied, вЂWell, I am just not so sure about that. ' Mrs. Mitchell then started to be defensive and stated that she acquired supported him when the Director of Healthcare professionals, Mrs. Mary Stroope, searched for to have him fired as director. Mrs. Stroope, inside the vicinity, overheard this comment, denied it, and called Mrs. Mitchell a liar. At various times in this exchange Mrs. Mitchell reported Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Stroope, and others as вЂbirdbrains. ' This took place in a crowded area where the Center's employees were checking out in and out, so Mr. Jones told the two to go in to his business office. There,
Mrs. Stroope apologized to Mrs. Mitchell pertaining to calling her a atar and Mrs. Mitchell apologized for saying that Mrs. Stroope had distributed a request to replace Mister. Smith. However , tempers quickly flared again and Mr. Smith solved to fire Mrs. Mitchell. Mrs. Mitchell then demanded her check. Mr. Smith paid her for this day, a week's getaway, and an additional week's...