Pride and Prejudice Essay Example for Free

Pride and Prejudice Essay Collins and many of the other characters mentioned within the novel. Social class also determines who one may marry, and this plays an extremely significant role within the lives of Jane and Elizabeth Bennet. Jane Bennet is a crucial character within Pride and Prejudice. She portrays the role of Elizabeth Bennet’s one and only older sister. Jane is considered to be â€Å"†¦ the only handsome girl in the room,† by Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy, and this occurs at the ball which is held in Netherfield. At this ball, she dances with a man by the name of Mr. Bingley, a man of large fortune who is described as being â€Å"†¦good looking and gentlemanlike; †¦pleasant countenance, and easy, unaffected manners† (Austen 6). As a result of the ball, Mr. Bingley and Jane spend more time together, and it is assumed that they are together, as a couple. Mr. Bingley has two sisters who act all sisterly-like towards Jane, and then crush her heart by saying that Bingley will not return to Netherfield, and will most likely find Mr. Darcy’s sister more handsome and agreeable than Jane. This is done by the Bingley sisters most likely because of Jane’s lower social status, and they would not want their brother marrying a sort of peasant girl, or a girl who is of a much lower status than himself. Due to social class in society at this time, Jane ends up getting her heart crushed, which is sad and tragic for a woman during this time period, especially when the woman has feelings for such a suitor. Should a woman show her feelings for a suitor, and then that suitor goes off and marries another, the reputation of the first woman and her family is, in a sense, ruined. Elizabeth Bennet is the main female character whom the story revolves around. She is treated in a very similar manner as Jane; however, Jane is treated with more compassion and seems to be loved more by everyone, whereas Elizabeth is the least liked of the five daughters in the Bennet family, and people tend to pass her up. Due to her social stature, as well as her reputation as being the least liked and less handsome, Elizabeth is treated the way she is. She is, in a way, treated as an inferior to Jane due to all of the factors mentioned previously. Elizabeth is also put down in many ways. Considering that she is less handsome than her sister, she is, in a way, a target of insult for Darcy, as he says that she is not good enough or pretty enough to grab his attention (7). In all, Elizabeth leads a rather ‘difficult’ life, not being recognized by her peers or by suitors who should really be so lucky to have her. Pride within Pride and Prejudice is seen as a common theme throughout the whole novel. Pride is what causes people to behave the way they do, acting arrogant and egotistical. Pride contributes to how people view society, believing that one is better than the rest of society and being conceited. Pride is what causes feuds most of the time, turning one against another with the argument that one is better than the other in many aspects. Prejudice, contrary to pride, is not seen quite as often. However, prejudice, although not as common, follows similar principles as pride. Prejudice causes people to behave the way they do, believing that a certain social class, ethnicity, or gender is inferior to one’s own. Prejudice also contributes to how people view society, again, believing that a certain characteristic contributes to where people stand on the social ladder. Prejudice, just like pride, can cause feuds by causing one party to believe that the other party is inferior to them, and is usually based on the factors of social class, ethnicity, or gender. Austen most likely made the decision of having pride appear frequently, whereas prejudice is practically nowhere to be found, in order to make note of the difference between the two terms. Pride is seen used more often by Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy, whereas prejudice is seen commonly used by Miss Elizabeth Bennet. Elizabeth Bennet, throughout the novel, shows signs of prejudice against Mr. Darcy in particular. When they appear at the ball in Netherfield, Austen states, â€Å"His character was decided. He was the proudest, most disagreeable man in the world, and every body hoped that he would never come there again† (6). It is then later stated that â€Å"†¦Elizabeth remained with no very cordial feelings towards him† (7). Elizabeth, in a way, holds a grudge against Darcy, always thinking negatively of him and putting him down in her eyes. This action of making it seem that he is, in a sense, inferior to her, represents her prejudice against him. Mr. Darcy shows pride in practically everything he does. He is a conceited, arrogant man, who believes that nothing is good enough for him. He exhibits this belief when he is at the Netherfield ball, and his friend, Mr. Bingley, points out that Darcy should dance with Elizabeth. Darcy replies, â€Å"She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (7). Darcy’s reputation for being full of pride is known all throughout the town, and it is said by one of Darcy’s old friends that â€Å"†¦almost all his actions may be traced to pride;-and pride has often been his best friend† (55). It is also assumed that, when his friend says that even Darcy’s sister is â€Å"-very, very proud,† that the whole Darcy lineage must be a very prideful family (56). During this time period in which Pride and Prejudice takes place, marriage was not decided on the basis of love. When one would get married, it was either for financial gain or social status. Mrs. Bennet, the mother in the novel, has only those two items on her mind when attempting to find suitors for her five daughters. She does not have even a sliver of empathy on how her decisions may potentially make her daughters’ lives miserable. Mr. Bennet, however, takes into account his daughters’ feelings when it comes to finding a suitor. Although he also has the thought of financial gain on his mind, his daughters always come first. He does, however, think of a plan. If Elizabeth were to marry Mr. Collins, Mr. Bennet’s nephew, the Bennet estate would remain in the family. The reason for this is because, during this time period, women could not inherit land. Seeing as Mr. Bennet had no sons, he gave the estate to his nephew. Now, if Elizabeth had accepted Mr. Collins’s proposal, the estate would have remained within the family. This is the only instance in which Mr. Bennet wants Elizabeth to marry a certain suitor. Retaining their estate and financial security is just one motive that may cause people to marry certain others. Mr. Wickham and Miss Charlotte Lucas, for instance, are two characters who get married throughout the novel, and both have, in a way, a hidden agenda for getting married. Miss Charlotte Lucas is a very close friend of Elizabeth, being the person who Elizabeth can confide in about anything. Charlotte is slightly older than Elizabeth, about seven years, and Charlotte feels that she is becoming a burden to her family. Being twenty-seven and unmarried, she wanted to free her family from herself, no longer being a bother to them. This is one of the motives that causes her to go off and marry Mr. Collins, Elizabeth’s cousin. She also becomes betrothed to Collins for financial security. Seeing as Collins would inherit the Bennet estate, this gave her the sense that they would not have to worry about finances, or anything of the sort. Charlotte views marriage in a peculiar way. She believes that marriage changes a person drastically, and that one can get married without having feelings for their partner at first. She thinks that a person, primarily a woman, should find a spouse and then grow to like them as time goes on. So, in reality, Charlotte believes that one can just rush into a marriage, and, in a sense, hope for the best. She does not believe in marriage should really occur on the basis of love. Charlotte also believes that â€Å"Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance† (14). Charlotte honestly believes that one does not have to be happy in marriage. She would rather marry off well and have a rich husband, yet be miserable while with him, than be in a marital relationship with someone who she truly cares about, even if that someone is not particularly well off. This is, in a way, Charlotte’s reasoning for marrying Mr. Collins. Seeing as how Mr. Collins has financial stability, this makes him, to her, a rich man who is very well off. She decides then to rush into marrying him, even though mutual feelings between them do not exist. So, not only does Charlotte get married to Mr. Collins to get out of her parents’ hair, but also because of his status and financial stability, and everything that would make him a good suitor. These are her hidden motives behind getting married in such a hurry, and although it seems like it is the perfect life, Charlotte has, in reality, just cost herself a chance to find someone better and more qualified to be her spouse. George Wickham plays multiple roles throughout the novel. For one, he plays the role of Elizabeth’s love interest towards the beginning of the novel. He shows feelings towards her in return, and one would assume that they may be a match. This, however, is altered by the fact that Elizabeth, in the end, marries Darcy. Wickham also plays the role of an old friend of Darcy’s. Darcy’s father was like a father to Wickham, and Wickham always points out that Darcy was never fond of him, which, in a way, is true. It is also false, because Darcy was a friend of Wickham’s, until Wickham revealed his true self. Wickham also became estranged from Darcy when he tried to run off and elope with Darcy’s sister, Georgiana. Wickham does a similar thing in his third role, which is as Lydia Bennet’s husband. Although Lydia says she is in love with Wickham, Wickham does not necessarily return those feelings. Wickham only wants to prey on the innocence of Lydia. With the knowledge that Lydia is still practically a child, and is susceptible to believing anything, Wickham knows that he can do as he pleases with her, and she will not see anything wrong with the picture. Wickham also decided elopement for another reason. At this time, if a woman and man eloped, the money that the woman had to her name could be used freely by her husband with no safeguards, and this could in turn lead to some difficulties later in time. Wickham only views marriage on the basis of mooching and getting money as part of the dowry from her family. His hidden agenda is to get married in order to get money from the bride’s side of the family. Wickham is, all in all, a selfish man who shows people what they want to see, and not his true self.

MAnaging Conflict Essay -- essays research papers

Managing Conflict What is conflict? Conflict is a natural disagreement resulting from individuals or groups that differ in attitudes, beliefs, values or needs. It can also originate from past rivalries and personality differences. Other causes of conflict include trying to negotiate before the timing is right or before needed information is available. Causes of conflict. 1. Lack of communication. There is a lack of communications. Failure to share ideas and feelings (between wife and husband for example) allows the other person to "fill in the gap." We "read in" what we think the other person will say or anticipate how the other person will respond. Then, we often suspect negative things which provokes anxiety, leading us to look for the worst. If this continues, trust becomes lower and we may become suspicious and defensive. 2. Value Conflict There is a value conflict in which two people have different attitudes, beliefs and expectations. These differences may interfere in making decisions if we are inflexible and hold rigid, dogmatic beliefs about the "right way" to do things. Different values and beliefs predispose two people to choose different goals or different methods to achieve the same goals. And, since each goal requires an investment of time, effort and some sacrifice, we cannot pursue one goal without sacrificing the other to some extent. 3. Lac...

Legal Writing

555 P. 2d 696 Supreme Court of New Mexico. Zelma M. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOVINGTON GOOD SAMARITAN CENTER, INC. , Defendant-Appellant. No. 10847. Oct. 27, 1976. Appeal was taken from an order of the District Court, Bernalillo County, Richard B. Traub, D. J. , reversing a decision of the Unemployment Security Commission and awarding benefits to discharged employee. The Supreme Court, Sosa, J. , held that employee’s insubordination, improper attire, name calling and other conduct evidencing wilful disregard of employer’s interests constituted ‘misconduct’ disqualifying her from receiving certain unemployment benefits. Reversed. Attorneys and Law Firms *576 **697 Heidel, Samberson, Gallini & Williams, Jerry L. Williams, Lovington, for defendant-appellant. Gary J. Martone, J. Richard Baumgartner, Joseph Goldberg, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee. OPINION SOSA, Justice. This case presents the issue of whether petitioner’s actions constituted misconduct so as to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benefits. On June 4, 1974, petitioner-appellee Zelma Mitchell was terminated for alleged misconduct from the Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. On June 12, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell applied for unemployment compensation benefits. Finding that Mrs. Mitchell’s acts constituted misconduct, a deputy of the Unemployment Security Commission disqualified Mrs. Mitchell from seven weeks of benefits pursuant to s 59-9-6(B), N. M. S. A. 1953. On July 24, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell filed an appeal. The referee of the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy’s decision and reinstated these benefits to Mrs. Mitchell on August 28, 1974. On September 13, 1974, the Center appealed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal to the whole Commission pursuant to s 59-9-6(E), N. M. S. A. 1953. The Commission overruled the Appeal Tribunal and reinstated the seven week disqualification period. Mrs. Mitchell then applied for and was granted certiorari from the decision of the Commission to the District Court of Bernalillo County pursuant to s 59-96(K), N. M. S. A. 1953. On January 16, 1976, the District Court reversed the Commission’s decision and ordered it to reinstate the benefits to Mrs. Mitchell. From the judgment of the District Court, the Center appeals. The issue before us is whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under s 59-9-5(b), N. M. S. A. 1953. Mrs. Mitchell started work at the Center in Lovington on July 4, 1972 as a nurse’s aide. After approximately one year on the job in addition to her normal duties she also served as a relief medications nurse two days per week. On June 4, 1974, she was terminated. The testimony concerning the events leading up to her termination that day is somewhat contradictory but basically is the following. Mrs. Mitchell arrived punctually to work at three p. m. The director of the Center, Mr. Smith, questioned her about why she was already filling in her time card. Mrs. Mitchell answered that she filled in eight hours, which she would work that day as long as she did not ‘break a leg or die. ’ Mr. Smith replied, ‘Well, I’m not so sure about that. ’ Mrs. Mitchell then became defensive and stated that she had supported him when the Director of Nurses, Mrs. Mary Stroope, sought to have him fired as director. Mrs. Stroope, in the vicinity, overheard this comment, denied it, and called Mrs. Mitchell a liar. At various times during this exchange Mrs. Mitchell referred to Mr. Smith, Mrs. Stroope, and others as ‘birdbrains. This occurred in a crowded area where the Center’s employees were checking in and out, so Mr. Smith told both to go into his office. There, Mrs. Stroope apologized to Mrs. Mitchell for calling her a liar and Mrs. Mitchell apologized for saying that Mrs. Stroope had circulated a petition to replace Mr. Smith. However, tempers soon flared again and Mr. Smith resolved to fire Mrs. Mitchell. Mrs. Mitchell then demanded her check. Mr. Smith paid her for that day, a week’s vacation, and another week’s salary for being terminated, which he was not required to do since Mrs. Mitchell failed to give him two weeks’ notice. 577 **698 Appellee Mitchell argues that the events of June 4, 1974, do not constitute misconduct within the meaning of s 59-9-5(b), supra. Appellant Center argues that these events were the last of a series of acts of misconduct, and the ‘birdbrain’ incident should be considered the ‘last straw’ resulting in her termination. Mitchell counters that the prior acts of misconduct should not be considered. The alleged acts of prior misconduct are the following. On April 2, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell went to work at the Center out of uniform (she wore gold pants rather than navy blue). On that day the Federal Regulation Inspectors visited the Center. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not know that the federal inspectors would be there that particular day. The Director of Nurses reprimanded her and told her to go home and to change into the proper attire, which Mrs. Mitchell refused to do. The following day Mrs. Mitchell again came to work out of uniform but this time she was directed to go and did go home to change. On May 24, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell was switched from medications to the floor routine. Angered, Mrs. Mitchell refused to give medications, even though the charge nurse and Mrs. Stroope explained to her that the reason for the switch was that she was familiar with both jobs whereas the replacement nurse, Carol Skurlock, was unfamiliar with the floor routine. Mrs. Mitchell stated that she did not like being replaced by a ‘white’ nurse’s aide (Carol Skurlock). Mrs. Mitchell considered herself and Carol to be just ‘birdbrain against birdbrain,’ apparently because neither she nor Carol was a licensed nurse. From May 24 to June 4 Mrs. Mitchell refused to perform her duties as a relief medications aide. On May 15, 1974, and other days, Mrs. Mitchell sang while counting medications and was not very co-operative, which caused Betty Clarke, R. N. , to complain that Mrs. Mitchell’s actions were unethical and time-consuming. The term ‘misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N. W. 636, 640 (1941) examined the misconduct subsection of its unemployment compensation act, found no statutory definition of misconduct, and formulated the following definition: . . ‘misconduct’ . . . is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s 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, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intenti onal and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand 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. We adopt this definition. Applying this definition of misconduct to the facts of the case before us, we hold that Mrs. Mitchell’s acts constituted misconduct. *578 **699 Mrs. Mitchell’s insubordination, improper attire, name calling, and other conduct evinced a wilful disregard of the interests of the Center. Although each separate incident may not have been sufficient in itself to constitute misconduct, taken in totality Mrs. Mitchell’s conduct deviated sufficiently to classify it as misconduct under the above test. Appellee’s argument that the ‘last straw’ doctrine should not be used is hereby rejected. The district court is reversed and the decision of the Commission is reinstated. McMANUS and EASLEY, JJ. , concur. 764 P. 2d 1316 Supreme Court of New Mexico. Billie J. RODMAN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT and Presbyterian Hospital, Respondents– Appellees. No. 17721. Nov. 30, 1988. The District Court, Bernalillo County, Ross C. Sanchez, D. J. , upheld administrative decision denying unemployment compensation to claimant. Claimant appealed. The Supreme Court, Ransom, J. , held that incident precipitating claimant’s termination demonstrated willful disregard for her employer’s interests. Affirmed. Stowers, J. , specially concurred and filed opinion. Attorneys and Law Firms **1317 *759 Juan A. Gonzalez, Legal Aid Society of Albuquerque, Inc. , Albuquerque, for petitioner-appellant. Connie Reischman, New Mexico Employment Sec. Dept. , Albuquerque, for respondents-appellees. OPINION RANSOM, Justice. An administrative decision of the New Mexico Employment Security Department denying unemployment compensation to Billie J. Rodman was reviewed on certiorari by the district court. Rodman now appeals to this Court from the order of the district court affirming the administrative decision. Rodman had been employed by Presbyterian Hospital as a unit secretary for nearly eight years when, on February 17, 1987, she was terminated under hospital personnel policies following a â€Å"third corrective action† notice. Prior restrictions had been placed on Rodman’s conduct due to personal problems adversely impacting upon her place of work. At issue is whether the misconduct which warranted termination from employment rose to the level of misconduct which would warrant denial of unemployment compensation under NMSA 1978, Section 51–1–7 of the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Department reasonably summarizes the substantial evidence as follows: Rodman was reprimanded in June of 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. The formal reprimand set forth conditions to prevent further corrective action. 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 visible 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 problems 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 more distressed. According to her supervisor, â€Å"[A]gain 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. † Another 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 there was a potential problem. On February 15, 1987, Rodman began work at 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon. She had spoken to her boyfriend’s mother earlier in the day to tell her that she did not want him to use her car as she had broken off their relationship. The boyfriend’s mother called 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 returning to her duty station, Rodman got another telephone call from her boyfriend who told her to go downstairs to the lobby 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 eft 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, â€Å"I didn’t want any kind of confrontation at the desk, so I went downstairs. † Before she left her desk, Rodman called the employer’s security guard and asked him to meet her in the lobby because she anticipated that a problem could develop. When Rodman got to the l obby, 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 driver’s 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 sent home. Thereafter she was terminated. The Appeals Tribunal of the Department of Employment Security found on the basis of the evidence that the appellant had proven unwilling to restrict her personal contacts while at work, as requested by her employer. The hearing officer dismissed as without **1319 *761 merit Rodman’s contention that she could not stop her acquaintances from calling or visiting her at work. The hearing officer concluded that Ms. Rodman’s behavior was unreasonable, had caused many problems for her work section, and constituted misconduct connected with work under Section 51–1–7(B). The Meaning of â€Å"Misconduct† in New Mexico’s Unemployment Compensation Law. Given the remedial purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Law, New Mexico courts, like most jurisdictions, interpret the provisions of the law liberally, to provide sustenance to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own, and who are willing to work if given the opportunity. Wilson v. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 74 N. M. 3, 14, 389 P. 2d 855, 862–63 (1963); Parsons v. Employment Security Comm’n, 71 N. M. 405, 409, 379 P. 2d 57, 60 (1963). Like most states, New Mexico also provides that an employee who is determined to have been discharged for â€Å"misconduct† is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. 51–1–7(B). Two purposes are served by this statutory bar: first, it prevents the dissipation of funds for other workers; second, it denies benefits to those who bring about their own unemployment by conducting themselves with such callousness, and deliberate or wanton misbehavior that they have given up any reasonable expe ctation of receiving unemployment benefits. Given the remedial purpose of the statute, and the rule of statutory construction that its provisions are to be interpreted liberally, the statutory term â€Å"misconduct† should not be given too broad a definition. Accordingly, in adopting the majority definition of the term, this Court wrote in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. , 89 N. M. 575, 577, 555 P. 2d 696, 698 (1976): â€Å"[M]isconduct† * * * is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s 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 * * *. M]ere 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 â€Å"misconduct† within the meaning of the statute. Where an employee has not acted with the requisite degree of â€Å"fault† under Mitchell, he or she has not sacrificed a reasonable expectati on in continued financial security such as may be afforded by accrued unemployment compensation benefits. It is therefore possible for an employee to have been properly discharged without having acted with such willful or wanton disregard for an employer’s interests as would justify denial of benefits. This Court recognized in Alonzo v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 101 N. M. 770, 689 P. 2d 286 (1984), that even an act of willful disobedience which leads to termination will not always rise to the level of â€Å"misconduct† when the act is an isolated incident in an otherwise favorable employment history and the incident does not cause a significant disruption of the employer’s legitimate interests. Trujillo v. Employment Sec. Dep’t, 105 N. M. 467, 472, 734 P. 2d 245, 250 (Ct. App. 1987) (where employment contract gave employer the right to draft employees to work overtime in emergency situations significantly affecting the employer’s interests, it was â€Å"misconduct† for appellees to have refused to report for overtime work). Alonzo and Trujillo demonstrate that there are two components to the concept of misconduct sufficient to justify denial of benefits. One is the notion that the employee has acted with willful or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests; the other is that this act significantly infringed on legitimate employer expectations. *1320 *762 Totality of circumstances and the â€Å"last straw† doctrine. Often, the courts have been confronted with a series of minor infractions by the employee, where each incident showed a willful disregard of the employer’s interests, but no single incident was serious enough to justify denial of benefits. In su ch cases, courts have applied a â€Å"totality of circumstances† or â€Å"last straw† test to determine whether, taken together, this series of incidents constitutes misconduct sufficient to disqualify the claimant from receiving benefits. Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. 89 N. M. 575, 555 P. 2d 696 (1976). Rodman recognizes the â€Å"last straw† doctrine, but contends that the district court erred in applying the rule in this case because her infractions of February 15 were the result of acts of third parties over whom she had no physical or legal control. Appellant contends that she may not be denied unemployment benefits where the â€Å"last straw† which led to her termination was not willful or intentional, especially where, under the employer’s personnel policy, she could not have been discharged at all before this final incident. The Department contends that it is immaterial whether the precipitating act was a willful or intentional violation of the employer’s rules, where the record indicates that the claimant had a history of previous acts which demonstrate a willful or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests, and the employer discharged the employee for the accumulation of events, including the precipitating event. Fort Myers Pump & Supply v. Florida Dep’t of Labor, 373 So. 2d 429 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979). Although Fort Myers does offer support for the appellee’s position, we believe termination for a series of incidents which, taken together, may constitute â€Å"misconduct† is distinguishable from termination for a single incident following one or more corrective action notices. In the latter event, as here, we hold that the â€Å"last straw† must demonstrate a willful or wanton disregard for the employer’s interests for unemployment benefits to be denied. If substantial evidence existed that Rodman’s conduct on February 15, considered in light of the totality of ircumstances including her previous history of personal phone calls and unauthorized visitors, showed a willful or wanton disregard for her employer’s interests, then Rodman’s benefits were properly denied. Although the evidence in this case is amenable to more than one reasonable interpretation, we conclude that there was a substantial basis for the district court to decide t hat Rodman’s actions on February 15, when considered in light of the restrictions which had been placed upon her and her previous failure to comply with those restrictions, demonstrated a willful disregard for her employer’s interests. Therefore, the decision of the district court is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. WALTERS, J. , concurs. STOWERS, J. , specially concurs. 769 P. 2d 88 Supreme Court of New Mexico. In re Claim of Lucy APODACA. IT’S BURGER TIME, INC. , Petitioner–Appellee, v. NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT, BOARD OF REVIEW and Lucy Apodaca, Respondents–Appellants. No. 17952. Feb. 22, 1989. Employer filed writ of certiorari to challenge Employment Security Department’s award of unemployment compensation to fast-food restaurant employee who refused to retint her purple hair. The District Court, Dona Ana County, Lalo Garza, D. J. reversed award of benefits. Employee appealed. The Supreme Court, Ransom, J. , held that evidence supported Department’s award of benefits. Reversed and remanded. Attorneys and Law Firms **89 *176 Jose R. Coronado, Southern New Mexico Legal Services, Inc. , Las Cruces, Connie Reischman, New Mexico Dept. of Labor, Albuqu erque, for respondents-appellants. Kelly P. Albers, Lloyd O. Bates, Jr. , Las Cruces, for petitioner-appellee. OPINION RANSOM, Justice. A determination by the Board of Review of the New Mexico Employment Security Department awarding unemployment compensation to Lucy Apodaca was reversed by the district court on certiorari. Apodaca appeals the district court decision, arguing that the court erred in finding the administrative determination was unsupported by substantial evidence and was contrary to law. We conclude substantial evidence supports the Board of Review decision that the conduct leading to Apodaca’s termination did not constitute misconduct warranting denial of unemployment compensation under Section 51–1–7(B) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Accordingly, we reverse the district court. Apodaca was employed as a counter helper from August 1986 to August 1987 with It’s Burger Time, Inc. Apodaca’s supervisors had no complaints concerning the performance of her work. Several times during the summer of 1987, Apodaca approached the store manager, John Pena, to ask how the owner, Kevin McGrath, would react if she were to dye her hair purple. Pena did not at first take the question seriously. When Apodaca persisted, Pena told her that he would have to ask McGrath. Apparently, he never did so. After several weeks, Apodaca went ahead and dyed her hair. McGrath saw Apodaca’s tinted hair for the first time at work two days later. He instructed Pena to give Apodaca a week to decide whether she wanted to retain her new hair color or her job. In a letter to the Board of Review, McGrath wrote that he had a good sense for community standards and believed he could not afford to wait until â€Å"this incident [took] it’s [sic] toll on my business. † Apodaca had signed the company handbook upon being hired, which instructed employees about acceptable hygiene and appearance. The handbook said nothing specific about hair color. Pena relayed McGrath’s message to Apodaca and suggested she make up her mind quickly so he could find someone to replace her if necessary. Two days later, Apodaca told Pena she had decided to keep her hair the way it was. She was then terminated and applied for unemployment benefits. The Department initially determined that Apodaca was ineligible for compensation because she had been terminated â€Å"for refusing to conform to the standards of personal grooming compatible with the * * * work [she was] performing. † The claims officer concluded this constituted misconduct under Section 51–1–7(B). Apodaca appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the denial of her benefits after a hearing. She appealed the Tribunal’s decision **90 *177 to the Department’s Board of Review. After reviewing the record of the hearing, the Board concluded that the employer failed to show how the color of Apodaca’s hair affected its business; therefore, her refusal to return her hair to its original color did not rise to the level of â€Å"misconduct† required for denial of her benefits. For review of the Board’s decision, the employer filed a writ of certiorari with the Dona Ana County District Court. The district court determined Burger Time’s request to Apodaca to change the color of her air was reasonable and enforceable and Apodaca’s refusal of that request was misconduct. The court concluded that the Board of Review’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was contrary to the law and reversed the decision granting Apodaca her benefits. This appeal followed. In reviewing the district court decision, we look first to see whether the court erred in concluding that the Department’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence. Because we conclude that the court erred in this determination, it is unnecessary for us to examine the findings and conclusions adopted by the court. Misconduct and the employer’s interest. Both Apodaca and Burger Time agree that the definition of â€Å"misconduct† as used in Section 51–1–7(B) is to be found in this Court’s opinion in Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. , 89 N. M. 575, 577, 555 P. 2d 696, 698 (1976): â€Å"[M]isconduct† * * * is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s 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. * * [M]ere 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 â€Å"misconduct† within the meaning of the statute. Apodaca d oes not deny that her refusal to redye her hair was an intentional and deliberate act. At issue in this case is whether an employee who refuses to alter her personal appearance in conformity with the employer’s personal beliefs about acceptable community standards has engaged in misconduct. The employer argues, and the district court apparently agreed, that so long as the request is reasonable and the employee is given adequate time to comply, refusal amounts to â€Å"insubordination and misconduct. † We disagree. In Alonzo v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 101 N. M. 770, 772, 689 P. 2d 286, 288 (1984), we recognized that termination for an isolated incident which does not â€Å"significantly affect[ ] the employer’s business† may not form the basis for denial of benefits on the grounds of misconduct. In Alonzo, an employee was terminated after refusing to wear a smock when working at the cash register as required by company policy. Id. at 771, 689 P. 2d at 287. As here, the employee’s previous work history was completely satisfactory, and there was no evidence that the employer’s business interests had been affected. Alonzo should be compared with Trujillo v. Employment Security Department, 105 N. M. 467, 471–72, 734 P. 2d 245, 249–50 (Ct. App. 987), which held that failure to report for overtime work pursuant to an employment contract provision allowing the employer to draft employees in emergency situations constituted misconduct, when the evidence demonstrated that the orders directing employees to report early to work were explicit and not confusing. In Trujillo, unlike Alonzo, failure to comply with the employer’s request was recognized as having significantly affected the employer’s interest. See also Thornton v. Dep’t of Hum an Resources Dev. , 32 Cal. App. 3d 180, 107 Cal. Rptr. 92 (1973) (refusal of restaurant employee to shave beard immediately or be terminated was not misconduct when employer failed to show that beard was unsanitary or otherwise detrimental to business); cf. Lattanzio v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. , 461 Pa. 392, 336 A. 2d 595 (1975) (claimant’s refusal to report back to work was for good cause when employer demanded he shave beard but no evidence supported contention that requested alteration in appearance was essential to performance of duties other than employer’s vague assertion that claimant’s â€Å"modish† appearance might reflect unfavorably on business). In this case, there is absolutely no evidence that the color of Apodaca’s hair significantly affected Burger Time’s business. McGrath and Pena both testified they received no customer complaints regarding the color of Apodaca’s hair. Apodaca’s immediate supervisor, testifying in her behalf, reported that the only comments she heard were compliments and that Burger Time’s customers had readily registered complaints in the past when they found something amiss. Under these circumstances, the Board of Review could properly decide that Apodaca’s refusal to retint her hair did not rise to the level of misconduct. Burger Time argues that none of our previous cases require an employer to demonstrate its business was affected by an employee’s refusal to comply with a request from the employer. However, it is well established in New Mexico that the party seeking to establish the existence of a fact bears the burden of proof. See Newcum v. Lawson, 101 N. M. 48, 684 P. 2d 534 (Ct. App. 1984); Carter v. Burn Constr. Co. , 85 N. M. 27, 508 P. 2d 1324 (Ct. App. ), cert. denied, 85 N. M. 5, 508 P. 2d 1302 (1973); Wallace v. Wanek, 81 N. M. 478, 468 P. 2d 879 (Ct. App. 1970); cf. Moya v. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 80 N. M. 39, 450 P. 2d 925 (1969) (when claimant sought to establish that he ought not be disqualified from receiving benefits because the position for which he refused to interview was not suitable employment, he bore burden of proof on this issue). In this case, pursuant to Department regulations requiring an employer to report why a claimant was fired or have that claimant’s benefits charged against the employer’s account, Burger Time submitted a letter stating that Apodaca refused to comply with company grooming standards. At each subsequent stage of the administrative process and before the district court, Burger Time sought to establish that Apodaca was terminated for misconduct. It therefore fell upon Burger Time to show that Apodaca’s refusal to change the color of her hair amounted to misconduct under the standard considered in Alonzo and Trujillo. This, Burger Time failed to do and thus failed to meet its burden of proof. Moreover, Apodaca presented uncontroverted testimony that no customers complained, and some complimented her for her hair. We do not question Burger Time’s right to establish a grooming code for its employees, to revise its rules in **92 *179 response to unanticipated situations, and to make its hiring and firing decisions in conformity with this policy. However, as we noted in Rodman, â€Å"It is * * * possible for an employee to have been properly discharged without having acted [in a manner] as would justify denial of benefits. † 107 N. M. at 761, 764 P. 2d at 1319. 2 Definition of misconduct and the right to terminate. Although not directly presented on appeal in this case, we note that in their decision letters both the Appeals Tribunal and the Board of Review used the following definition: â€Å"The term ‘misconduct’ connotes a material breach of the contract of employment or conduct reflecting a willful disregard of the employer’s best interests. (Emphasis added. ) We rejected this definition in Rodman, 107 N. M. at 763, 764 P. 2d at 1321, as inconsistent with the Mitchell standard requiring a willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interests. The use of the term â€Å"or† implies that any breach of the employment contract sufficient to warrant discharge of the employee serves as adequate grounds for denial of benefits, whether or not the employee acted in a willful or wanton manner. Where an employee has not acted with the requisite degree of ‘fault’ under Mitchell, he or she has not sacrificed a reasonable expectation in continued financial security such as may be afforded by accrued unemployment compensation benefits. † Id. at 761, 764 P. 2d at 1319. The decision of the trial court is reversed, and this case is remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the decision of the Board of Review. IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Transition From High School Into College Essay

The transition from high school into college is undoubtedly a very important time in the lives of many young people. It is a huge step, and a huge change. There are some who cling to their fading high-school life, reluctant to let go and move on. Many of my friends would fall under this category. Some of them seem more prepared for the increasingly near future than others, and they will have varying degrees of success in beginning their college experience, be it near home or hours away. But Natalie is different than they are. Rather than getting caught up in the sentimentality of it all, she is embracing the looming future with open arms. Natalie Rogers is ready to move on. She is an 18-year-old senior at Coleman High School, and she feels absolutely prepared to move into the next stage of her life. This puts her in the national minority. According to a country-wide survey, 45% of high school seniors feel prepared for college and a career. She’s not alone, however, in looking forward to the freedom and independence generally associated with college life. â€Å"I’m really excited that I get to be on my own, make a lot of my own decisions, and kind of learn how to be independent. Because I haven’t gotten a lot of that†. One thing that has become apparent to me is the value that Natalie places on independence. However, in certain situations, she does consider herself to be dependent on others, sometimes very much so. I asked her if she considered herself to be an independentShow MoreRelatedThe Transition From High School Into College897 Words   |  4 Pages The transition from high school into college can be one that many students can struggle with. There are so many things that have to be adjusted to that things can seem overwhelming at times. This is something that those who choose to go to college have to go through though. One of the big things that students find difficult is the ability to adjust to the style of writing that is required in this higher level of education. They are accustomed to the typical format of shallow writing that is satisfactoryRead MoreCurrent Levels Of Academic Achievement And Functional Performance926 Words   |  4 Pages Transition Plan Student Name: Projected Date of Graduation: Date of Transition Plan: Participants in the Plan: A) Current Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance: 1. Strengths of Student: Jayland is a high school student who is bright, talkative and personable. Jayland excels in Science winning the science fair on his project on rocks. Jayland got A’s while taking online course work as he finds it easy to use the computer. Jayland is in an AP science class and honors EnglishRead MoreTransition Interview : Susan Nixon, The Coordinator Of Learning And Programming At Old Dominion University Essay781 Words   |  4 Pages Transition Interview For my transition interview I interviewed Susan Nixon, who is the coordinator of learning and programming at Old Dominion University. Her job entails helping students with disabilities transition from high school to college. When students with disabilities are in high school they have an IEP or 504 to help them. However, when they come to college they no longer have an IEP, they become protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During my interview with Ms. NixonRead MoreCollege Graduation Speech Outline1497 Words   |  6 PagesI. INTRODUCTION A. How many years have you been in school? How many of you ever thought that once I enter college that I will have a lot of freedom? Have you ever considered how much your life will change once you enter college? B. Many of you upcoming freshman probably think that college is the same school except you have more freedom, especially now that you are consider as an adult but your whole life changes completely from how you behave in front of people, or whom you talk to, butRead MoreCollege Education : High School College886 Words   |  4 Pagesthe freshman myth is high school seniors that get affected by the transition from college life. They are overly optimistic and confident in their ability to manage the challenges they will encounter in college. This freshman myth being blamed on by high school because in high school there is no help preparing students for the transition from high school to college, giving future students high expectation on academic, social and personal experiences for when entering college. But this becomes a dominoRead MoreTransitions Of Career Development And Transition Programs836 Words   |  4 PagesTransitions occur throughout life and there are numerous tran sitions students face within the school setting. Since school counselors support students in academic, career and college, and social and personal development, school counselors are in key positions to provide students with opportunities, equity, and access to programs that support smooth transitions and college and career readiness (Erford, 2015). Career development and transition programs are important because they support they can provideRead MoreCollege Dropouts Essay929 Words   |  4 PagesMany high school students succeed with a little leniency through their four years. The transfer from high school to college becomes overwhelming and a struggle for some. For students do not comprehend the importance of changing more than their location during the transition. A student must be psychologically, physically, and emotionally mature to pursue college and not venture into a point of no return. Dropping out of college makes the outlook of the conversion difficult to acquire. Indiv idualsRead MoreThe Little Things Count : College Versus High School1083 Words   |  5 PagesWhen the little things count: college versus high school When you change from the world being a reliant teenager to an young adult you go through a series of life transitions and educational stages. Society marks the educational jump from being a teenager to an adult in a stereotypical way, you are expected to go from high school to college. While attending high school it is the goal of those teachers to prepare you for this aperture into the unknown. Learning important lessons like getRead MoreStruggles with Stages of Development and Transition Points and How It Affects Identity1674 Words   |  7 PagesStruggles with Stages of Development and Transition Points and How It Affects Identity There are many developmental milestone events and transition points that help form the identity of an individual. As one transitions from milestone to another, they are not necessarily losing or gaining anything, but are adapting to their new stage in life (Bjorklund, 2011). These transitions can affect other domains of human development including: physical changes, cognitive changes, personality or identity, socialRead MoreThe Transition Times. Graduation Is One Example Of A Time1240 Words   |  5 PagesThe Transition Times Graduation is one example of a time of celebration and honor. It is the reward you receive for multiple years of difficult work and perseverance. It is also an extremely bittersweet occasion because often times you are required to make difficult decisions. Decisions that could take you away from everyone and everything you have ever known. This is known as a time of transition. Honestly, it seems a bit anticlimactic that after all the emotions and preparation you do beforehand