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 under hospital personnel policies following a third corrective action nonice. Prior restrictions had been placed on Rodmans conduct out-of-pocket to personal problems adversely impacting upon her place of name. Rodman was reprimanded in June 1986 for receiving an inordinate number of personal telephone calls 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 palpable to patients, physicians, or other department staff. When leaving the department for dinner, Rodman was to report to her immediate supervisor and was not to leave the hospital. Rodman was to make every effort to resolve the matters in her personal life that were causing pr oblems at work. Nevertheless, according to the testimony of her supervisor, extremely disruptive telephone calls continued.The doctors were beginning to comment on it. The staff was getting much 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. some other written reprimand in November of 1986 warned Rodman that her job was in jeopardy if the disruptive behavior continued. The supervisor established restrictions prohibiting the claimant from having visitors at the department and instructed her to notify security if thither was a potential problem. On February 15, 1987, Rodman began work at 100 oclock in the afternoon. She had spoken to her familiars mother earlierin the day to tell her that she did not want him to use her car as she had broken off their relationship. The boyfriends mother calle d her at work and told her the boyfriend 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 number where he could be reached. She left the work area and went to the break room to call him. After move to her duty station, Rodman got another telephone call from her boyfriend who told her to go downwardlystairs to the entrance hall 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 kind of confrontation at the desk, so I went downstairs. Before she left her desk, Rodman called the employers security 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 tore her shirt. At this point the security guard arrived and observed them arguing. Rodman was in the passenger 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 received 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 direct home. Thereafter she was terminated. IssueAt Issue is whether the misconduct which warranted termination from unemployment rose to the level of misconduct which would warrant denial of unempl oyment compensation under NMSA 1978, section 51-1-7 of the Unemployment wages Law. Whether the events of a third party constituted the last straw doctrine.RuleMisconduct * * * is limited to conduct evincing much(prenominal) wilful or wanton disregard of an employers interests as is found in deliberate 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 recurrence 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 compendium of those events, including the precipitating event. Rodmans condu ct on February 15, considered in light of totality of circumstances including her previous history or personal phone calls and unauthorized visitors, showed awillful or wanton disregard for her employers interests. Rodman did not comply with her previous restriction put on her by her employer which was grounds affluent for termination and denial of unemployment benefits. The last straw was applied in this case due to Ms. Rodmans totality of circumstances.ConclusionDecision 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.