Court Opinion

ID: 9628552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:24:15.605626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:07.393463
License: Public Domain

STOWERS, Justice, dissenting. I dissent. The evidence in this case clearly demonstrates that the appellant (Alonzo) committed an act of insubordination constituting misconduct. A deliberate or willful refusal by an employee to obey a reasonable order or directive which an employer is authorized to give and entitled to have obeyed constitutes insubordination. See School District No. 8, Pinal County v. Superior Court, 102 Ariz. 478, 433 P.2d 28 (1967); Beatty v. Automatic Catering, Inc., 165 Colo. 219, 438 P.2d 234 (1968); Avery v. B & B Rental Toilets, 97 Idaho 611, 549 P.2d 270 (1976). Furthermore, a reading of the statute in question, NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-7 (Repl.Pamp.1983), “Disqualification for Benefits” states: An individual shall be disqualified for, and shall not be eligible to receive, benefits: B. if it is determined by the department that he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his work or employment. (Emphasis added.) In view of the uncontroverted evidence that the appellant’s misconduct was connected with her employment, the only matter remaining for this Court’s consideration is whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision. There is such substantial evidence as found both by the Employment Security Department and the trial court and as we have said innumerable times, if there is substantial evidence to support the trial decision, it will not be disturbed. Baca v. Employment Services Division of the Human Services Department, 98 N.M. 617, 651 P.2d 1261 (1982); Donovan v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, 97 N.M. 293, 639 P.2d 580 (1982); Abernathy v. Employment Security Commission, 93 N.M. 71, 596 P.2d 514 (1979).