Rodman V. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988)

1045 Words Sep 30th, 2012 5 Pages
Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988).

Facts: Ms. Rodman was an employee of Presbyterian Hospital for nearly eight years as a unit secretary. On February 17, 1987, the appellant was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a “third corrective action” notice. Ms. Rodman was reprimanded in June of 1986 in light of receiving an inordinate number of personal calls and visitors at her work station. The formal reprimand set forth conditions to prevent further corrective action. The conditions were as follows: no personal telephone calls during work hours outside of a designated break or dinner time, these are to occur in an area not visible to patients, physicians, or other
…show more content…
Rodman agrees to meet the boyfriend downstairs. When claimant left her area she notified a co-worker, as her supervisor was on lunch, she then notifies the security guard, and asks him to meet her in the lobby.
When Ms. Rodman arrived in the lobby the boyfriend started to make a scene and forced her outside. As a result the claimant’s shirt had tore. At which point the security guard arrives to find the two (claimant, and claimant’s boyfriend) arguing and inside her car. The security guard instructed the boyfriend to give
Ms. Rodman her keys back, the boyfriend jumps into the driver’s seat, locks the doors, and drive off.
Thirty-Five minutes later Ms. Rodman returns to proceed with her shift, where telephone calls continue.
The supervisor, frustrated sends Ms. Rodman home, shortly after the claimant is terminated.

Issue: The issue in question is whether the misconduct which warranted termination from employment rose to the level of misconduct which would warrant denial of unemployment compensation under NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-7 of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Rule: Meaning of “misconduct” under New Mexico’s Unemployment Compensation Law is not to be given a too broad meaning. As defined in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89
N.M. 575,577,555 P.2d 696,698 (1976): “ Misconduct” is limited to conduct envincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an