Legal unit3 - Case Study Example

Legal Unit 3 Introduction This essay will brief on three cases by following the FIRAC briefing method. FIRAC is an acronym representing five step process used to determine violation of law in legal learning (Guether, 2006, sec 1.1). Each letter represents one step and the order in which the briefing should be performed. To begin with the first step is the facts of the case; secondly, the law issue arising from the facts which is the question for the court to decide, thirdly, the rule to be applied.

Fourthly is the application of the rule to the facts by identifying an element law issue and compared to the satisfaction of the issue of law gets satisfied (Turner 2004, p. 28). Lastly, the conclusion of the issue before Court inform of ruling (Guether 2006, sec 1.1).Case # (1) Lovington Good Samaritan Inc v. Mitchell, 555 P. 2d 696 (N.M 1976)This Appeal involves Lovington Good Centre as the appellant against Mrs. Mitchell the Appellee. The history of this case is that Mitchell got terminated by the Appellee without benefit Mitchell applied to the Unemployment Commission for benefits, but the application got turned down.

Mitchell then, appealed to the Tribunal of Appeal which reversed the commission decision. The centre appealed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal to the Commissioner who reversed the decision upholding the disqualification of benefits. Mitchell appealed the Commissioners decision to the district court which overruled the Commissioners decision reinstating the benefits causing the Centre to appeal.The facts are that, Mitchell had used insubordinate language by calling her seniors bird brains and that on several occasion she failed to wear uniform while on duty.

The question before the Court is whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions amount to misconduct. Misconduct rule got applied as defined in the case of Boyton Cab Co v Neubeck, 237 Wis. 248 (1941) to mean willful disregard of an employers interest as observing in deliberate violation of standards which the employer expects from the employee. The failure of Mitchell to wear the uniform and calling of names amounts to misconduct. In conclusion because Mrs. Mitchell willfully and negligently fails to wear uniform as instructed by the employer is guilty of misconduct.Case # (2) Billie j. Rodman v. Mexico Security Dep, 764 P.

2d 1316 (N.M 1988).This case involves Rodman as the appellant against Mexico Security Department as the Appellee. The Appeal arose from the upholding of administrative decision denying unemployment compensation to the appellant. The facts are that, Rodman the appellate used to receive subordinate telephone calls and visitors during the time of work at Presbyterian Hospital. Rodman continued receiving phone calls and visits despite warnings by the management. The question before the Court is whether this act constitutes a misconduct which can result to denying Rodman the compensation benefits.

The rule applied is misconduct under the Unemployment Compensation law, and common law to mean a willful conduct in disregard of employer’s interest by violating standards of behavior expected by the employer. The literal meaning and purpose of the rule of misconduct got applied as not to allow compensating the employees who bring their own unemployment by willful disregard of the employer’s interest. The appellate continued to receive phone calls and visitors. In conclusion, the act by Rodman is willful and in disregard to the interest of the employer; therefore, she is guilty, and the district courts ruling remains in force.Case # (3) Lucy Apodaca v.

Burger Inc, 769 P.2d 88 (N.M. 1989).This case involves Apodaca as the appellant against Burger Time Inc as the Appellee. This Appeal by Apodaca arose from the decision of a District Court to overturn the decision of the Board of Review awarding unemployment compensation. The facts are that Apodaca after requesting the store manager went ahead and dyed the hair, the owner of the restaurant, McGrath terminated the employment after Apodaca refused to redye the hair as the employer required. The question before the court is whether Apodaca refusal to alter personal appearance to conform to the likes and beliefs of the employer constitutes a misconduct warranting denial of unemployment benefits.

The rule of misconduct got applied as per section 51-1-7( B) and as defined by the courts in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc, 555 P.2d 696 (N.M 1976) that misconduct means behavior constituting willful disregard to employers interest. Apodaca act of dyeing the hair and refusing to redye after instructions by the employer amounts to willful disregard to the employer. Customers did not complain about the hair but complemented services offered by Apodaca. In conclusion, the conduct does not constitute a wanton behavior disregarding the employer’s interest and so the appellant remains entitled to unemployment compensation.

Work citedChris Turner. Unlocking the English Legal System 4th edn. Guttenberg Press Limited, London 2004David Guenther, Emeritus. FIRAC: An Elementary Approach to Legal Reasoning. Michigan bar Journal. Central Michigan University 2006.