Court Opinion

ID: 9687673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:41:30.153505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:29.869937
License: Public Domain

Grant, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (Reissue 1988) provides, in pertinent part, “An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:... (b) For the week in which he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her work . . . .” The later reference to “gross” misconduct in that statute has only to do with the fact that the commissioner may totally disqualify an employee for gross misconduct, rather than disqualify the employee “for not less than seven weeks nor more than ten weeks” for lesser misconduct. Any misconduct, gross or other, must be, under the plain words of the statute, “connected with [the employee’s] work.”
Appellant’s misconduct was not connected with his work. As far as the record shows, he was an exemplary, laboring garbageman. His conduct was wrongful in his actions as a landowner. It is not determinative, of course, but it is hard for me to think appellant’s actions were more wrongful than the actions of the City of Minden were negligent — if one can compare apples and oranges.
The City of Minden had every right to fire appellant, but no one should be able to deprive him of unemployment benefits, unless such deprivation is authorized by statute.
I would reverse.