Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Ã¯Â»Â¿Case Brief Essay
FactsBillie J. Rodman, Appellant was employed by Presbyterian Hospital as a unit secretary for eight years when, on Feb 17, 1987, she was terminated beneath infirmary personnel policies following a third corrective natural process nonice. Prior restrictions had been placed on Rodmans conduct due to in-person problems adversely impacting upon her place of call on. Rodman was reprimanded in June 1986 for receiving an inordinate number of personal bring forward look tos and visitors at her work station, which was disruptive to her own work and to her co-workers. Rodman was to have no personal telephone calls during work hours outside of a designated break or dinner time, in which event they were to occur in an area not visible to patients, physicians, or other department staff. When leaving the department for dinner, Rodman was to shroud to her immediate supervisor and was not to leave the hospital. Rodman was to make every political campaign to resolve the matters in her perso nal life that were causing problems at work. Nevertheless, correspond to the testimony of her supervisor, extremely disruptive telephone calls continued.The doctors were beginning to comment on it. The staff was getting more distressed. According to her supervisor, Again we talked about the visits, the behavior at the desk. When it got pretty bad with the phone calls, Billie would slam charts, push chairs and be a little abrupt with the people she worked with. Another written reprimand in November of 1986 warned Rodman that her job was in jeopardy if the disruptive behavior continued. The supervisor establish restrictions prohibiting the claimant from having visitors at the department and instructed her to notify security if there was a likely problem. On February 15, 1987, Rodman began work at 100 oclock in the afternoon. She had spoken to her fellers mother earlierin the solar day to tell her that she did not want him to use her car as she had low-spirited off their relation ship. The sheiks mother called her at work and told her the fop had her car keys. Rodman told the mother to have the boyfriend call her at work.When he did, she informed him that she could not talk to him at her duty station, and he hung up on her. He called her back and left(a) a number where he could be reached. She left the work area and went to the break room to call him. After returning to her duty station, Rodman got another telephone call from her boyfriend who told her to go downstairs to the lobby to meet him and pick up the keys. When she refused, he told her that if she did not come down he would come up to her department. 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. Rodman testified, I didnt want any benevolent of confrontation at the desk, so I went downstairs. Before she left her desk, Rodman called the employers secu rity guard and asked him to meet her in the lobby because she anticipated that a problem could develop.When Rodman got to the lobby, her boyfriend started yelling and forced her outside. In doing so, he rupture her shirt. At this point the security guard arrived and observed them arguing. Rodman was in the rider seat of her car. The security guard instructed the boyfriend to return the keys, but the boyfriend jumped into the drivers seat, locked the doors and drove off. About thirty-five minutes later, Rodman returned to her work station, after having changed her torn shirt. She resumed working, but, as the shift progressed, more telephone calls were get for her in the department. The supervisor became frustrated with the volume of calls and the behavior of Rodman. It was determined that Rodman should be sent home. Thereafter she was terminated. IssueAt Issue is whether the misconduct which warranted end from unemployment rose to the level of misconduct which would warrant denial of unemployment compensation chthonic NMSA 1978, section 51-1-7 of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Whether the events of a third party constituted the tolerate straw doctrine.RuleMisconduct * * * is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or prosperous disregard of an employers interests as is found in overturn violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or return as to manifest equal culpability * * *. Mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed misconduct within the meaning of the statute.ApplicationRodman had a history of wanton or wilful disregard for the employers interest and was discharged for the assembly of those events, including the precipitating event. Ro dmans conduct on February 15, considered in light of core of circumstances including her previous history or personal phone calls and unauthorised visitors, showed a headstrong or wanton disregard for her employers interests. Rodman did not comply with her previous restriction put on her by her employer which was estates enough for termination and denial of unemployment benefits. The last straw was employ in this case due to Ms. Rodmans totality of circumstances.Conclusion finale was affirmed by the courts in light that Ms. Rodmans actions on February 15, which when it was considered in light of restrictions that where upon her previous failure to comply with those restrictions, demonstrated a willful disregard for her employers interests.