Court Opinion

ID: 9931519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 14:06:25.507561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:22.758394
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
02/09/2024 08:06 AM CST

                                                         - 911 -
                               Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                                        315 Nebraska Reports
                                        WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                                                 Cite as 315 Neb. 911

                             Kathryn Wright, appellant, v. Southwest
                              Airlines Co. and Nebraska Department
                                       of Labor, appellees.
                                                    ___ N.W.2d ___

                                         Filed February 9, 2024.   No. S-23-376.

                 1. Employment Security: Judgments: Appeal and Error. In an appeal
                    from the appeal tribunal to the district court regarding unemployment
                    benefits, the district court conducts the review de novo on the record,
                    but on review by the Nebraska Court of Appeals or the Nebraska
                    Supreme Court, the judgment of the district court may be reversed,
                    vacated, or modified for errors appearing on the record.
                 2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for errors
                    appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to
                    law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capri-
                    cious, nor unreasonable.
                 3. Employment Security: Appeal and Error. The question of whether
                    an employee was “discharged for misconduct connected with his or her
                    work” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628.10 (Reissue 2021) is a mixed
                    question of law and fact.
                 4. ____: ____. In analyzing whether an employee was discharged for
                    misconduct connected with his or her work under Neb. Rev. Stat.
                    § 48-628.10 (Reissue 2021), the historical facts and circumstances sur-
                    rounding the discharge are questions of fact, but the ultimate question
                    of whether, given those facts and circumstances, the employee’s mis-
                    conduct is connected with work presents a question of law.
                 5. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court, in reviewing a
                    district court judgment for errors appearing on the record, will not sub-
                    stitute its factual findings for those of the district court where competent
                    evidence supports those findings.
                 6. ____: ____. Whether a decision conforms to law is by definition a
                    question of law, in connection with which an appellate court reaches a
                    conclusion independent of that reached by the lower court.
                                    - 912 -
           Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                    315 Nebraska Reports
                  WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                           Cite as 315 Neb. 911

 7. Employment Security: Words and Phrases. “Misconduct,” for pur-
    poses of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628.10 (Reissue 2021), includes behavior
    which evidences (1) wanton and willful disregard of the employer’s
    interests, (2) deliberate violation of rules, (3) disregard of standards of
    behavior which the employer can rightfully expect from the employee,
    or (4) negligence which manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil
    design, or intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s inter-
    ests or of the employee’s duties and obligations.
 8. Employment Security. Misconduct connected with work is a breach of
    a duty owed to the employer, not to society in general.

   Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Peter
C. Bataillon, Judge. Affirmed.

  Jon Rehm, of Rehm, Moore & Rehm, P.C., L.L.O., for
appellant.

  Gerald W. Pankonin, Katie S. Thurber, and Joel F. Green,
of Nebraska Department of Labor, for appellee Nebraska
Department of Labor.

  Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

   Papik, J.
   Southwest Airlines Co. (Southwest) terminated Kathryn
Wright’s employment as a customer service agent after it con-
cluded that, in her volunteer role on a workplace social com-
mittee, she failed to keep adequate records of expenditures
and spent committee funds for personal purposes. Wright’s
subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits
was initially granted by a Nebraska Department of Labor
(DOL) adjudicator, but that decision was overturned by the
DOL appeal tribunal. The district court affirmed, finding that
Wright was disqualified from receiving unemployment ben-
efits for the week of the discharge and the 14 weeks thereafter
because she was terminated “for misconduct connected with
. . . her work” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628.10 (Reissue
                             - 913 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
              WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 911

2021). Wright appeals that decision. Because she does not
identify any errors appearing on the record, we affirm.
                       BACKGROUND
DOL Adjudicator Finds Wright Qualified
for Unemployment Benefits.
   Wright was employed as a customer service agent for
Southwest. She was discharged from her employment follow-
ing an internal disciplinary hearing. Wright filed a claim for
unemployment insurance benefits. A DOL adjudicator con-
ducted an investigation and issued a determination that Wright
qualified for those benefits.
DOL Appeal Tribunal Finds Wright
Disqualified for Benefits.
   Southwest filed an administrative appeal of the adjudicator’s
decision with the appeal tribunal. The matter was heard before
an administrative law judge.
   According to testimony at the hearing, Wright was employed
as a customer service agent for Southwest at its station in
Omaha, Nebraska. Her job duties included working at the
ticket counter, the gate, and the baggage service office. Wright
testified that on a number of occasions, she was nominated
by a coworker for an award in recognition of her exemplary
job performance. However, Wright was discharged from her
employment following an internal hearing related to her vol-
unteer activities on Southwest’s “Culture Committee.”
   The appeal tribunal heard testimony that the Culture
Committee was established to increase employee morale and
retention at Southwest. Southwest flew Omaha employees
who joined the Culture Committee to the company’s head-
quarters and trained them to promote the company’s culture;
Southwest paid employees for the time they spent in this
training. Members of the Culture Committee, overseen by
Southwest’s station manager, planned activities for employ-
ees at their respective workplaces, such as holiday parties.
Occasionally, Culture Committee members did tasks for the
                             - 914 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
              WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 911

committee on their personal time, for which they were not
paid by Southwest.
   There was testimony before the appeal tribunal that Culture
Committee activities were funded in part by contributions
from Southwest headquarters and in part from contributions
from local Southwest employees. For special events, Southwest
would give the Culture Committee a certain amount of funds
to use per employee. Southwest also supported the Culture
Committee’s efforts to fundraise from employees by allowing
the Culture Committee to keep proceeds from breakroom vend-
ing machines stocked by the Culture Committee.
   According to the testimony at the hearing, when Wright
joined the Culture Committee, she was authorized to use the
bank card for a Culture Committee account. The bank card
bore the names of both Wright’s supervisor and “Culture
Committee.” The account for the bank card was funded by the
voluntary contributions of local employees. Wright’s station
manager testified that employee contributions to the Culture
Committee were meant for “culture within the station and
nothing else.”
   The station manager testified that in December 2021, he
communicated to the Culture Committee members, including
Wright, that “[t]his is money for the station” and explained the
expectations for handling committee funds. He told them that
they were required to keep a ledger, or “detailed documenta-
tion,” of all purchases and to “keep receipts.” The station
manager recalled that he was “very frank with [Wright] and
the rest of the people in the room, that, hey, we’re not going
to put ourselves in a situation where there is a question on
how money was spent, or where money was spent, and what
it was spent on.”
   The appeal tribunal heard the station manager’s testimony
that Wright made purchases with the Culture Committee bank
card, but she did not keep a ledger of expenses as he had
instructed her. The station manager also testified that when
receipts were itemized at the end of February 2022, it came to
                             - 915 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
               WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 911

his attention that Wright had not submitted receipts for some
of her purchases. The station manager approached Wright and
told her that receipts were missing. Wright initially stated that
she would produce the missing receipts.
   The station manager testified that at a Culture Committee
meeting a couple of weeks later, there was again discussion
about the importance of providing receipts for all purchases;
Wright, the station manager, and other committee members
were present. At that meeting, Wright confirmed she would
provide the missing receipts.
   There was testimony that when Wright still did not submit
the receipts, the station manager followed up with an email
to Wright, giving her a deadline. Wright turned in some of
the missing receipts, but not all of them, and she asked for
an extension of the deadline due to a family emergency. The
station manager sent another email extending the deadline, but
Wright did not meet the extended deadline.
   At that point, the station manager testified, he issued a
notice of hearing to address the missing receipts and mis-
use of company funds. The station manager recalled that at
the internal hearing, Wright admitted to using the Culture
Committee card to renew her personal Sam’s Club member-
ship, which was required to shop at the store. He also recalled
that Wright admitted to using the Culture Committee card
to purchase groceries for her personal use. At the internal
hearing, Wright turned in receipts for those expenditures and
offered reimbursement. According to the station manager,
“we were not aware of the misappropriation of funds until
the [internal] hearing occurred, because there [were] approxi-
mately . . . 10 receipts that we did not have for us to validate
the purchases that were made from the account.”
   Of the receipts that Wright turned in, one confirmed that
Wright had used the committee’s bank card to renew her
personal membership to Sam’s Club for $35 in January
2022. Testimony before the appeal tribunal established that
Wright did this without asking for permission and did not
                             - 916 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
               WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 911

ask Southwest to pay for a membership. The station manager
testified that, given the purposes for the funds in the Culture
Committee account, Wright was not “allowed” to use those
funds to renew her personal membership.
   With respect to another receipt that Wright submitted, she
noted that she had used the Culture Committee card to pur-
chase personal groceries at Sam’s Club in February 2022,
totaling approximately $60. Wright testified before the appeal
tribunal that she had also purchased Culture Committee items
during the same shopping trip and had mistakenly used the
Culture Committee card for her own groceries as well. The
station manager testified Wright’s claim of a mistake was not
previously brought to his attention.
   According to the station manager, after the internal hear-
ing, Southwest terminated Wright’s employment. He recalled
that he did not ask Wright to pay back the Culture Committee
funds she had used for personal expenses because “the trust
had been broken,” and “it was best to just move on and
[part] ways.”
   After hearing this testimony, the appeal tribunal reversed
the adjudicator’s determination. It found that Wright should
be disqualified for unemployment benefits for the week of her
termination and for 14 weeks thereafter under § 48-628.10
because she was discharged for misconduct connected with
her work.

District Court Affirms, Finding Wright
Disqualified for Benefits.
   Wright appealed to the district court. She claimed that the
appeal tribunal erred in finding that she committed misconduct
and in finding that the alleged misconduct was in connection
with her employment. At a hearing, the district court received
the bill of exceptions from the appeal tribunal and took judicial
notice of the court file.
   The district court recited findings largely consistent with
the facts above and the governing legal principles. It affirmed
                             - 917 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
              WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 911

the appeal tribunal’s decision that under § 48-628.10, Wright
was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for the
week of the discharge and the 14 weeks that followed.
   The district court reasoned that Wright had committed mis-
conduct based on three independent grounds. First, the district
court found that Wright engaged in misconduct when she vio-
lated Southwest’s rule requiring employees making purchases
for the Culture Committee to keep a ledger and maintain sup-
porting documentation for all expenses. Second, the district
court found that Wright’s use of the Culture Committee bank
card to renew her personal membership to Sam’s Club with-
out authorization was misconduct. Third, the district court
found that Wright committed misconduct in using the Culture
Committee bank card to purchase personal groceries.
   The district court also determined that Wright’s misconduct
was connected with her work. Observing that the Culture
Committee was “a program of the employer,” the district court
continued:
      Misconduct that occurs as part of an event or program
      that is designed to benefit the employer/employees is
      connected to work, even if it is outside the course of the
      employee’s job duties. Wright only had an opportunity
      to serve on the Culture Committee and access its funds
      because of her employment with Southwest. Wright’s
      misconduct directly harmed the interests of Southwest
      and breached a duty owed to her employer, rather than
      just a duty owed to society generally.
         While Wright emphasizes that the specific funds in the
      account that she misspent were donated by co-workers,
      not provided by Southwest, this does not undermine the
      conclusion that her conduct was connected to her work.
      The funds were raised within an employer-sponsored
      program. Moreover, because employers have a legitimate
      interest in the workplace environment, courts readily find
      that misconduct targeted at co-workers is connected to
      the work.
                             - 918 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
              WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 911

The district court concluded, “Because Wright’s conduct
occurred within the context of an employer-sponsored commit-
tee and caused harm to Southwest and its employees, Wright’s
misconduct is connected to her work within the meaning of
. . . § 48-628.10.”
    Wright appeals.
                ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
  Wright assigns that the district court erred in finding that
she committed disqualifying misconduct in connection with
her employment.
                  STANDARD OF REVIEW
   [1,2] In one sense, our standard of review in this mat-
ter is well-established, yet, in another, it is not. It is well-
established that in an appeal from the appeal tribunal to the
district court regarding unemployment benefits, the district
court conducts the review de novo on the record, but on
review by the Nebraska Court of Appeals or the Nebraska
Supreme Court, the judgment of the district court may be
reversed, vacated, or modified for errors appearing on the
record. See Pinnacle Bancorp v. Moritz, 313 Neb. 906, 987
N.W.2d 277 (2023). It is similarly well-established that when
reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, the
inquiry is whether the decision conforms to law, is supported
by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious,
nor unreasonable. See id.
   While our overarching standard of review in this matter is
clear, there is some uncertainty whether a determination that
an employee was “discharged for misconduct connected with
his or her work,” for purposes of § 48-628.10, is a determina-
tion of law, fact, or a mixed determination of law and fact.
As a recent dissenting opinion from a member of this court
observed, aside from one cursory (and conclusory) assertion
in Smith v. Sorensen, 222 Neb. 599, 386 N.W.2d 5 (1986)—
that whether conduct constitutes misconduct under the unem-
ployment security statutes is a question of fact—we do not
                            - 919 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
              WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 911

appear to have addressed the issue. See Pinnacle Bancorp
v. Moritz, supra (Cassel, J., dissenting). And, as the afore-
mentioned dissenting opinion explained, the nature of the
determination is consequential, as its resolution determines
the degree of deference an appellate court owes to the district
court. See id. We thus believe it appropriate to consider that
issue here.
   [3] We agree with the recent dissenting opinion’s conclu-
sion that the question of whether an employee was “discharged
for misconduct connected with his or her work” is a mixed
question of law and fact. The question requires an analysis
that involves a determination of relevant historical facts and
circumstances but also the application, to those facts and cir-
cumstances, of recognized legal standards that define what it
means for an employee to be “discharged for misconduct con-
nected with his or her work.” See, also, State v. Hammond,
ante p. 362, 996 N.W.2d 270 (2023) (explaining analytical
framework for mixed question of law and fact in context of
consent to search case).
   [4] We thus conclude that in analyzing whether an employee
was discharged for misconduct connected with his or her
work, the historical facts and circumstances surrounding the
discharge are questions of fact, but the ultimate question of
whether, given those facts and circumstances, the employee’s
misconduct is connected with work presents a question of
law. See Pinnacle Bancorp v. Moritz, supra (Cassel, J., dis-
senting) (absent dispute regarding relevant facts, whether
employee’s misconduct was connected with work is question
of law). To the extent language in Smith v. Sorensen, supra,
suggests that a determination that an employee was “dis-
charged for misconduct connected with his or her work” is
solely a determination of fact, it is disapproved.
   [5,6] It follows that review of a district court’s find-
ings of historical fact in a case like this will be entitled to
more deference than a district court’s ultimate conclusion
that an employee was discharged for misconduct connected
                            - 920 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
              WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 911

to his or her work. An appellate court, in reviewing a district
court judgment for errors appearing on the record, will not
substitute its factual findings for those of the district court
where competent evidence supports those findings. Pinnacle
Bancorp v. Moritz, 313 Neb. 906, 987 N.W.2d 277 (2023).
Whether a decision conforms to law is by definition a question
of law, in connection with which an appellate court reaches a
conclusion independent of that reached by the lower court. Id.
With the governing standard of review established, we turn to
the merits of Wright’s appeal.
                           ANALYSIS
   In Nebraska, unemployment benefits are governed by stat-
ute. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-601 to 48-683 (Reissue 2021).
Wright contends that the district court erred in finding her
disqualified for benefits as set forth in § 48-628.10(1). That
subsection provides that “[a]n individual shall be disquali-
fied for benefits for the week in which he or she has been
discharged for misconduct connected with his or her work, if
so found by the commissioner [of labor], and for the fourteen
weeks immediately thereafter.” § 48-628.10(1). The employer
has the burden of proving misconduct connected with the
employee’s work. See Pinnacle Bancorp v. Moritz, supra.
   Wright argues both that she did not commit any misconduct
that would disqualify her under § 48-628.10(1) and that, even
assuming she committed misconduct, it was not connected with
her work. We address both arguments below, beginning with
whether the district court erred by finding that Wright engaged
in disqualifying misconduct.
Misconduct.
   [7] Section 48-628.10 does not define “misconduct,” but
we have long said that it includes behavior which evidences
(1) wanton and willful disregard of the employer’s interests,
(2) deliberate violation of rules, (3) disregard of standards
of behavior which the employer can rightfully expect from
the employee, or (4) negligence which manifests culpability,
                             - 921 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
               WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 911

wrongful intent, evil design, or intentional and substantial dis-
regard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties
and obligations. See Pinnacle Bancorp v. Moritz, supra.
   Wright advances three arguments to support her position
that the district court erred in finding she engaged in mis-
conduct under § 48-628.10(1). First, she contends that any
alleged misconduct should be weighed against certain “miti-
gating factors,” namely that she volunteered on the Culture
Committee to benefit her fellow employees and that she
had been recognized for her good work as a customer ser-
vice agent. Brief for appellant at 6. Second, she claims that
purchasing the Sam’s Club membership was a mere mistake
in judgment and therefore not misconduct. Finally, Wright
asserts that her purchase of personal groceries was not mis-
conduct because it was only negligent. We are not persuaded
that Wright has demonstrated reversible error.
   We first address Wright’s suggestion that any misconduct
should be weighed against her job performance and the fact
that she volunteered to work on the Culture Committee with-
out pay. Here, Wright argues that we should import one fac-
tor from a seven-factor analysis some arbitrators have used
to assess whether employment was terminated for just cause
under a collective bargaining agreement. See City of Omaha v.
Professional Firefighters Assn., 309 Neb. 918, 963 N.W.2d 1
(2021). Wright claims that the consideration of “mitigating fac-
tors” would “lead the court to conclude that her conduct was
not severe enough to warrant a disqualification of benefits.”
Brief for appellant at 6.
   We find no support for Wright’s argument that “miti-
gating factors” must be considered in determining whether
an employee was discharged for disqualifying misconduct.
Whether an employee is entitled to unemployment benefits
is procedurally and substantively distinct from an arbitrator’s
assessment of termination for just cause under a collective
bargaining agreement. As we have observed, entitlement to
unemployment benefits is a statutory question in Nebraska,
                            - 922 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
              WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 911

and Wright fails to point to anything in the language of
§ 48-628.10 or in cases interpreting the statute that supports
the sort of balancing analysis she proposes. To the contrary,
under § 48-628.10(1), an employee is disqualified from ben-
efits if “he or she has been discharged for misconduct con-
nected with his or her work”; the quality of the employee’s
past service, paid or volunteer, is not mentioned as a relevant
consideration.
   Having determined that the district court was not obli-
gated to consider “mitigating factors” in determining whether
Wright was discharged for disqualifying misconduct under
§ 48-628.10, we conclude that it is unnecessary to consider
her remaining arguments that she did not commit disquali-
fying misconduct. Recall that the district court found three
independent acts of misconduct: (1) Wright’s violation of
Southwest’s rule that she keep a ledger and maintain support-
ing documentation for all Culture Committee expenditures,
(2) Wright’s renewal of her personal Sam’s Club membership
with Culture Committee funds, and (3) Wright’s purchase
of groceries with Culture Committee funds for her personal
use. Wright makes arguments that the district court erred
by finding that the latter two acts constituted disqualifying
misconduct, but aside from her general contention that any
alleged misconduct should have been balanced against “miti-
gating factors,” Wright makes no argument that the district
court erred in determining that her failure to keep a ledger
and maintain documentation of Culture Committee spending
was misconduct.
   We thus see no basis upon which we could reverse the
district court’s determination that Wright’s failure to keep
a ledger and maintain supporting documentation constituted
disqualifying misconduct under § 48-628.10(1). See Uhrich
& Brown Ltd. Part. v. Middle Republican NRD, ante p. 596,
998 N.W.2d 41 (2023) (to be considered by appellate court,
alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifi-
cally argued). And, as we will explain in the next section, we
                             - 923 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
               WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                        Cite as 315 Neb. 911

find no error in the district court’s determination that Wright’s
failure to keep a ledger and maintain supporting documenta-
tion was connected with her work.
Connected With Work.
   On the issue of whether any misconduct was connected
with her work, Wright acknowledged at oral argument that she
does not dispute the district court’s findings of fact. Relevant
to its decision that Wright’s misconduct was connected with
her work, the district court made factual findings that the
misconduct occurred in the context of a committee or pro-
gram Southwest sponsored, that the funds Wright spent were
donated by Wright’s coworkers within that program, that the
Culture Committee was designed to benefit Southwest and its
employees, and that Southwest gave Wright the opportunity to
serve on the Culture Committee and to access the committee’s
funds only because she was Southwest’s employee.
   While Wright does not quibble with these factual findings,
she does contest the district court’s determination that these
facts, taken together, demonstrate a connection with her work
within the meaning of § 48-628.10. That, as we concluded
above, is a legal determination and thus reviewed de novo.
   [8] We have acknowledged that there is no statutory defini-
tion for “connected with [the employee’s] work” as it is used
in § 48-628.10 and that we have not set forth a list of ele-
ments or an explicit definition for the phrase. See Pinnacle
Bancorp v. Moritz, 313 Neb. 906, 987 N.W.2d 277 (2023).
But we have noted that some of the elements of our test for
“misconduct” describe some connection to the employer’s
interests. Id. And we have said that misconduct connected
with work is a breach of a duty owed to the employer, not
to society in general. Id. We have further held that “general
misconduct totally divorced from an employee’s job or not in
any way related to his or her employment” is not misconduct
justifying denial of benefits. See Poore v. City of Minden, 237
Neb. 78, 86, 464 N.W.2d 791, 796 (1991).
                             - 924 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
              WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 911

   Wright offers multiple reasons why any misconduct on her
part was not connected with her work. She argues that the
alleged misconduct was not related to her employment because
it occurred while she was working in a volunteer capacity for
the Culture Committee and not as part of her job as a customer
service agent. Relatedly, she emphasizes that the funds she
spent and failed to adequately account for were not Southwest
funds but funds contributed by her coworkers. Finally, she
argues that the district court erred by failing to construe the
connection to work requirement in favor of Wright’s entitle-
ment to benefits.
   We are not persuaded by Wright’s attempt to detach her
activities on the Culture Committee from her work. Even
though Wright’s duties on the Culture Committee were differ-
ent from her paid job duties as a customer service agent, it was
Wright’s employment with Southwest that gave her the oppor-
tunity to serve on the Culture Committee in the first place.
   Neither does the fact that Culture Committee funds were
contributed by Wright’s coworkers disrupt the connection to
work; instead, it reinforces it. The funds may have been con-
tributed by Southwest employees, but they were contributed to
a committee that Southwest organized, promoted, supported,
and regulated. Southwest did so as part of an attempt to build
employee morale. That same concern for employee morale
provided Southwest with a reason to implement rules that
were designed to ensure that funds donated to the Culture
Committee were, in fact, spent for Culture Committee pur-
poses. As the station manager testified, Southwest demanded
that Culture Committee members keep a ledger and maintain
supporting documentation because Southwest did not want
“to put [itself] in a situation where there is a question on how
money was spent, or where money was spent, and what it was
spent on.” Southwest had an interest in these rules being fol-
lowed, and a failure to follow them would harm Southwest, as
opposed to society in general.
                            - 925 -
         Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
                  315 Nebraska Reports
              WRIGHT V. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
                       Cite as 315 Neb. 911

   Finally, as for Wright’s argument that the district court
should have construed the connection to work requirement
in favor of Wright’s entitlement to benefits, Wright is correct
that we have said that the Employment Security Law is to be
liberally construed so that its beneficent purpose of paying
benefits to involuntarily unemployed workers may be accom-
plished. See Pinnacle Bancorp v. Moritz, 313 Neb. 906, 987
N.W.2d 277 (2023). But even assuming that the connection to
work requirement of § 48-628.10 should be construed in favor
of paying benefits, we see no error. No amount of “construc-
tion” could permit a conclusion that Wright’s failure to follow
her employer’s rules for accounting for money contributed
by her coworkers to a committee organized by her employer
to promote workplace morale was not, in the language of
§ 48-628.10, “connected with . . . her work.” Because the
undisputed facts demonstrate a connection with Wright’s work
within the meaning of § 48-628.10, the district court’s resolu-
tion of the issue conformed to the law.
                      CONCLUSION
  Finding no errors appearing on the record, we affirm.
                                                 Affirmed.