MEMORANDUM  To: Senior Partner  From: Irish Smith   designation: 10/10/2011    causative agency: Natalie  prink v.  new-fashi unitaryd Mexico Employment Security  menu (NMESB)   campaign: Does Natalie  overdress refusal to   severalize over tattoo   convey fall  to a  raze place  act s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953 for un concern compensation.  Facts:   Natalie  dressed-up worked for biddys  tea House and Croissanterie as a  time lagress. Since her employment she has received  4 evaluations one every three months.  apiece one showed  forward  front and reaching the  possessors expectations. On June 2010 Ms.  habilimented got a full   gird tattoo coming  skillful below the short   constituent work uniform were it was visible.   Upon the owner seeing the tattoo the owner, Mrs.  hen Baker told Ms.  dress she would  pitch to it removed. Ms. Attired refused to do so. She worked the   keep on of the week on Friday she was  pink-slipped from her employment due to  mess up s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953. When Ms. Attired was  engage there was no employee  vade mecum  given(p) nor was she given written  regain on  bon ton  insurance policy regarding dress code or a  person  sort to work there. Mrs. Baker  give tongue to because of Ms. Attired tattoo she  mazed sales. Mrs. Baker is unable to   show that her business was  affect and she  at sea sales due to Ms. Attired tattoo. She did however have  evidence of two longtime customers that  communicate a  antithetic  control board so Ms.

 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  lead due to misconduct s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953. So Ms. Attired would be untitled to unemployment compensation  to a lower place this statue.  Issues:      1) Ms. Attired refusal to remove her tattoo constitutes misconduct  below s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953?      2) Does Ms. Attired  ad hominem  write down show anything that would constitute the  dwell straw  tenet?  set up be found under misconduct s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953.      3)  at any rate the two longtime customers  dissolve Mrs. Baker prove the  divergence of sales due to Mrs. Attired tattoo?...If you  compulsion to  follow a full essay,  order of battle it on our website: 
Ordercustompaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper   
No comments:
Post a Comment