Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (1976).

Facts: The appellee was terminated from the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. on June 4, 1974. On June 12, 1974 Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits. She was initially disqualified from seven weeks of benefits by a deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission. Mrs. Mitchell then filed an appeal, and the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy’s decision. Mrs. Mitchell’s benefits were reinstated on August 28, 1974. On September 13, 1974 the Center appealed the decision made by the Appeal tribunal to the whole Commission. The Commission overruled the Appeal Tribunal and reinstated the seven week disqualification period. Mrs. Mitchell then …show more content…

Conclusion: Decision of the district court is affirmed; Claimant’s termination demonstrated willful disregard for her employer’s interests, therefore, unemployment compensation is denied.

It’s Burger Time, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Labor Employment Security Department, Board of Review, and Lucy Apodaca, 769 P.2d 88 (1989).

Facts: Lucy Apodaca was employed with It’s Burger Time, Inc., and during her time of employment there were no complaints concerning the performance of her work. Several times Apodaca inquired to the store manager about how the store owner would react if she were to dye her hair purple. Apparently, the manager never did ask him about the matter, and after several weeks Apodaca went ahead and dyed her hair. The owner saw Apodaca’s hair for the first time two days later, and instructed the manager to give her a week whether she wanted to keep her hair color or her job. He stated that he could not wait for this incident to take a toll on his business. Apodaca had signed the company handbook upon being hired which instructed employees of acceptable hygiene and appearance. The handbook did not say anything about hair color. The manager