PA205 Final Legal Memo

PA205 Final Legal Memo

Legal Memorandum
Unit 9 Final
Kaplan University
Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing


To: John Doe, Esquire, Senior Partner

From: Jennifer Ramos, Paralegal

Date: October 16, 2011

Re: Natalie Attired Unemployment Compensation Claim - Conclusion

Case No.: 210204


May 2009: Ms. Natalie Attired started her employment with Biddy’s Tea House. Ms. Biddy Baker conducted and provided work performance evaluations every 3 months. During her employment, Ms. Attired was evaluated a total of 4 times, in which she showed steady improvement without reprimands.

June 2010: Ms. Natalie Attired purchased a full-sleeve tattoo (photo attached); The tattoo covered her upper right arm. At some point there was a time when Ms. Attired wore a short sleeve uniform, in which the lower part of her tattoo was exposed. Biddy Baker stated, that if in fact Ms. Attired did not get the tattoo removed, she would be terminated. Natalie refused to remove her tattoo, thus was terminated for misconduct the following Friday.

July 2010: Ms. Natalie Attired filed for unemployment compensation benefits and was denied due to “misconduct”.

There was not an employee manual or written policy about employee conduct or work attire, thus Ms. Attire never received one and it was stated by Ms. Baker that there was never one created.
However, while Ms. Attired did work with her tattoo, Ms. Baker was able to produce the names of two customers, who requested to be moved from Ms. Attired’s section, due to her tattoo. That was the only discretion customers voiced about the tattoo. Ms. Baker could not provide proof of a decline in sales while Ms. Attired was employed.


Was Ms. Attired’s failure to remove her tattoo, when instructed to do so by her employer, constitute as “misconduct” defined by New Mexico Statute §51-1-7.?

Brief Answer:

No. Ms. Natalie Attired’s denial to remove her tattoo,...

Similar Essays