When Apodaca persisted, Pena told her that he would have to ask McGrath. He called her back and left a number where he could be reached. Pena did not at first take the question seriously.
NOTES  Although appearing before the district court to defend its decision, the Department did not file an appellate brief. However, we have said that the "totality of circumstances" is relevant in contexts other than discharge after the accumulation of a series of minor incidents.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court. She resumed working, but, as the shift progressed, more telephone calls were received for her in the department. Two days later, Apodaca told Pena she had decided to keep her hair the way it was. From May 24 to June 4 Mrs.
Specifically he objects to any findings relating to merchandise shortages and the employer's investigation of those shortages.
Two days later, Apodaca told Pena she had decided to keep her hair the way it was. The district court is reversed and the decision of the Commission is reinstated.
At issue in this case is whether an employee who refuses to alter her personal appearance in conformity with the employer's personal beliefs about acceptable community standards has engaged in misconduct. There is no evidence that Sanchez had violated the policy on any other occasion.
In re Apodaca, N. Mitchell for calling her a liar and Mrs. On certiorari, the district court is to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Department's decision, its findings have substantial support in the record as a whole.
On May 15,and other days, Mrs. Stroope had circulated a petition to replace Mr. However, it is well established in New Mexico that the party seeking to establish the existence of a fact bears the burden of proof.
Both Apodaca and Burger Time agree that the definition of "misconduct" as used in Section B is to be found in this Court's opinion in Mitchell v.
See also Thornton v.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. It’s Burger Time, Inc.
v. New Mexico Department of Labor Employment Security Department, Board of Review, and Lucy Apodaca, P. 2d 88 (). Facts: Lucy Apodaca was employed with It’s Burger Time, Inc., and during her time of employment there were no.
Descendants of Francisco Hernández Courtesy Bexar Genealogy, compiled by Steve Gibson (Updated 03/20/09) Generation No. 1 1. Alférez Francisco1 Hernández1 was born Bet. -and died October 04, in La Villa de San Fernando de Béxar2,3. STOWERS, J., specially concurs.
P. 2d 88 Supreme Court of New Mexico.
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. No. Jan 16, · decided that Apodaca was ineligible for compensation.
Apodaca appealed to Words: — Pages: 4 Billie j. Rodman - Unit 5 Assignment Review and Lucy Apodaca P. 2d 88 () receiving benefits. 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.Download