Court Opinion

ID: 9692874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:09:46.633704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:37.656471
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the legal analysis of the majority, but disagree with its application of the law to the facts. Specifically, I approve of the modification of Dean (in which I did not participate) by adopting the Washington rule in Nelson, so long as it is clear that we are interpreting and clarifying, rather than attempting to modify, the specific legislative enactments of SDCL 61-6-14.1.
In my opinion, the conduct of Kotrba was work-connected, even under the rule pronounced by the majority. He was a City employee who had been specifically warned by his City supervisor that as a City employee he was expected to comply with City ordinances. Rather than complying with his City supervisor, he knowingly violated the City ordinance, saying it was “no big deal.” Kotrba’s attitude and actions clearly “had some nexus” with his City work; “resulted in some harm” to the City’s interests, since it adversely reflected on the City government and was reflective of his little *317regard for the City’s genuine interests; was violative of his employment obligations and done with the intent and knowledge that City’s interest would suffer.
Kotrba should not be allowed to invite his own discharge and benefit thereby under the unemployment insurance laws. Matter of Yaroch, 333 N.W.2d 448 (S.D.1983).
I would affirm.