MEMORANDUM To: Senior Partner From: Irish Smith discover: 10/10/2011 causal agency: Natalie prink v. impudently Mexico Employment Security Board (NMESB) campaign: Does Natalie dressed refusal to class over tattoo demand fall to a reject place act s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953 for un drill compensation. Facts: Natalie tog out worked for biddys tea House and Croissanterie as a time lagress. Since her employment she has received 4 evaluations one every three months. each(prenominal) one showed forward motion and reaching the possessors expectations. On June 2010 Ms. prink got a full arm tattoo coming upright below the short subdivision work uniform were it was visible. Upon the owner seeing the tattoo the owner, Mrs. Biddy Baker told Ms. appareled she would endure to it removed. Ms. Attired refused to do so. She worked the continue of the week on Friday she was brush off from her employment due to misconduct s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953. When Ms. Attired wa s employ there was no employee vade mecum given nor was she given written chance on on bon ton policy regarding dress code or a person appearance to work there. Mrs. Baker say because of Ms. Attired tattoo she lost sales. Mrs. Baker is unable to record that her business was affect and she lost sales due to Ms. Attired tattoo. She did however have proof of two longtime customers that bespeak a antithetic table so Ms.
![Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uclcVjCyI_1y260wZWnHPDtx_xm5_M0V66hrKHNsDU7FlhyenA6Xr90PwKZLFEIz_KfjsjUKluvwZtWNmgL5zxdy9zrO5K75uVLdNWC7XsdBATAQ=s0-d)
Attired didnt have wait on them because they didnt like her tattoo. Ms. Attired filed for unemployment compensation in July of 2010. The NMESB denied her claim due to misconduct s 59-9-6(E), N. M.S.A.1953. So Ms. Attired would be untitled! to unemployment compensation low this statue. Issues: 1) Ms. Attired refusal to remove her tattoo constitutes misconduct low s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953? 2) Does Ms. Attired ad hominem record show anything that would constitute the goal straw tenet? Can be found under misconduct s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953. 3) Besides the two longtime customers tin Mrs. Baker prove the loss of sales due to Mrs. Attired tattoo?...If you compulsion to get a full essay, outrank it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment