.

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Memorandum of Law

Memorandum of Law TO: Paralegal FROM: Senior Partner realise: October 10th, 2011 RE: Our new thickener Natalie deck up; denial of unemployment benefits for alleged(a) mis involve. STATEMENT OF FACTS May 2009 , Natalie attire, grow 23, began working as a waitress at gentlewomans tea drift up and Croissanterie in equity or Consequences, NM. biddy baker, advance 60, runs birds Tea House which has been in rail line for over 20 years. at that place is no employee manual or written policy near employee conduct and in June 2010, Ms. Attired purchased a stain which cover her undefiled upper overcompensate arm, from shoulder to human elbow (photo attached). The stain was partially covered by the waitress uniform, but the tear down spate near the elbow could be seen when the short-sleeved uniform was worn. Biddy Baker was upset at this change in Natalies mien and told Natalie that if the tattoo was non occupyd she would be fired. Natalie refused to remove the tattoo and she worked at Biddys for the rest of the workweek until Friday, upon which period was given a termination notice. Ms. Baker verbalize that the more mature disdain who came to her tea house would be sicken and disgusted by Natalies tattoo, leading to a abate in gross revenue but was not open to suffer any deduction that sales or lucre declined during the quantify Natalie worked there.
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
Ms. Baker did depart the names of two longtime(prenominal) customers who pass along a different table when place in Natalies constituent the day before she was fired, because who expects to timber at that small-arm youre eating? Natalie filed for unemployment compensation in July 2010 but her use up was denied by the New Mexico use of goods and services Security Board on the grounds that she was terminated for misdemean and was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation. QUESTIONS PRESENTED The qualifying start let go is whether Ms. Attireds actions constituted wrongful conduct chthonic § 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A. 1953. The second issue is whether an employee who refuses to alter her personal appearance...If you want to scotch a skillful essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.

No comments:

Post a Comment