Case brief billie rodman v new mexico employment security department and presbyterian hospital

SCRAC 4 provides: Claimant left the department to confront her boyfriend, and, because her supervisor was at lunch in the hospital cafeteria, Rodman notified a co-worker, a registered nurse, that she was leaving.

Nevertheless, according to the testimony of her supervisor, extremely disruptive telephone calls continued. Supreme Court of New Mexico. Under these circumstances, it was proper for the district court to make independent findings and conclusions.

This Court has had occasion in the past to interpret this provision. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc.

RODMAN v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SEC. DEPT.

Rodman was reprimanded in June of for receiving an inordinate number of personal telephone calls and visitors at her work station, which was disruptive to her own work and to her co-workers.

About thirty-five minutes later, Rodman returned to her work station, after having changed her torn shirt. After hearing said cause the court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter judgment therein upon the merits. Under these circumstances, it was proper for the district court to make independent findings and conclusions.

RODMAN v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SEC. DEPT.

The district court shall try and determine such cause upon the evidence legally introduced at the hearing before said board of review of the employment security department presented by the parties to said court.

The use of the disjunctive "or" was error, as it implies that a breach of the employee's duties sufficient to warrant termination is automatically grounds for denial of benefits. Totality of circumstances and the "last straw" doctrine.

Other relevant circumstances include the worker's knowledge of the employer's expectations, the reasonableness of those expectations, and the presence of any mitigating factors Goodridge v.

The doctors were beginning to comment on it. When leaving the department for dinner, Rodman was to report to her immediate supervisor and was not to leave the hospital. Although the evidence in this case is amenable to more than one reasonable interpretation, we conclude that there was a substantial basis for the district court to decide that Rodman's actions on February 15, when considered in light of the restrictions which had been placed upon her and her previous failure to comply with those restrictions, demonstrated a willful disregard for her employer's interests.

Rodman v. New Mexico Employment SEC. Dept.

The staff was getting more distressed. When she refused, he told her that if she did not come down he would come up to her department. After hearing said cause the court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law and enter judgment therein upon the merits.

In this case, the hearing officer misapprehended the standard of "misconduct" as set forth in Mitchell and in this opinion.

In this case, the hearing officer misapprehended the standard of "misconduct" as set forth in Mitchell and in this opinion. Although the evidence in this case is amenable to more than one reasonable interpretation, we conclude that there was a substantial basis for the district court to decide that Rodman's actions on February 15, when considered in light of the restrictions which had been placed upon her and her previous failure to comply with those restrictions, demonstrated a willful disregard for her employer's interests.

It was determined that Rodman should be sent home. New Mexico State Corp. Rodman was to make every effort to resolve the matters in her personal life that were causing problems at work. She left the work area and went to the break room to call him. She resumed working, but, as the shift progressed, more telephone calls were received for her in the department.

When Rodman got to the lobby, her boyfriend started yelling and forced her outside. Rodman had been employed by Presbyterian Hospital as a unit secretary for nearly eight years when, on February 17,she was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a "third corrective action" notice.

If substantial evidence existed that Rodman's conduct on February 15, considered in light of the totality of circumstances including her previous history of personal phone calls and unauthorized visitors, showed a willful or wanton disregard for her employer's interests, then Rodman's benefits were properly denied.

The supervisor established restrictions prohibiting the claimant from having visitors at the department and instructed her to notify security if there was a potential problem. In the latter event, as here, we hold that the "last straw" must demonstrate a willful or wanton disregard for the employer's interests for unemployment benefits to be denied.

New Mexico Employment Sec. The hearing officer concluded that Ms. Case Brief P.2d Supreme Court of New Mexico Billie J.

RODMAN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT and Presbyterian Hospital, Respondents–Appellees. Rodman v.

Rodman v. New Mexico Employment SEC. Dept.

New Mexico Employment Security Department, P. 2d (N.M. ) Facts: Ms. Billy J. Rodman, appellee had been employed by Presbyterian Hospital as a unit secretary for nearly eight years when, on February 17,she was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a "third corrective action" notice.

CASE NAME Billie J. RODMAN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT and Presbyterian Hospital, Respondents–Appellees. COURT The United States Supreme Court JURISDICTION Supreme Court of %(1). Rodman v New Mexico Employment Security Department and Presbyterian Hospital, Respondents – Appellees P.2d.

(N.M. ) FACTS: Billie J. Rodman was employed by Presbyterian Hospital as a unit secretary for almost eight years as a unit secretary when she was terminated under personnel policies after a third correction action notice was given on February 17, Case Brief P.2d Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Billie J. RODMAN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT and Presbyterian Hospital, Respondents–Appellees. CASE NAME Billie J.

RODMAN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT and Presbyterian Hospital, Respondents–Appellees. COURT The United States Supreme Court JURISDICTION Supreme Court of New Mexico%(1).

Case brief billie rodman v new mexico employment security department and presbyterian hospital
Rated 5/5 based on 22 review