Court Opinion

ID: 9687672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:41:30.149622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:29.865496
License: Public Domain

Caporale, J.,
dissenting.
There is absolutely no question that applicant, Gordon R. Poore, was guilty of unlawful, gross, flagrant, and willful misconduct such as to warrant the termination of his employment with the City of Minden; this notwithstanding that *88it seems impossible his thefts could have continued without discovery for a whole decade without at least one other agent of the good citizens of Minden being less than diligent.
Nonetheless, I must dissent because the question is not whether Poore should have been fired, but whether the law disqualifies him from receiving unemployment benefits. The majority concedes that in order for him to be so disqualified, the misconduct must have been connected with applicant’s work. See Great Plains Container Co. v. Hiatt, 225 Neb. 558, 407 N.W.2d 166 (1987). Indeed, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(b) (Reissue 1988) provides that an applicant is disqualified for benefits
[f]or the week in which he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her work... and for not less than seven weeks nor more than ten weeks which immediately follow such week . . . except that if . . . such individual’s misconduct was gross, flagrant, and willful, or was unlawful, the commissioner shall totally disqualify such individual from receiving benefits----
(Emphasis supplied.) Thus, all misconduct disqualifications are dependent upon a work connection; the nature of the misconduct affects only the period of disqualification.
The majority acknowledges that Poore’s “employment had nothing to do with his taking electrical and water services,” as he could have done the same thing “no matter for whom he worked.” It then declares a rule which requires public ■ employees to be worthier of esteem than the citizens he or she serves and makes all public employee behavior which “evinces a conscious and intentional disregard of standards of behavior which [the] governmental employer would have a right to expect” work-connected misconduct. Although such a rule may well be appropriate when considering the behavior of a judge, mayor, or other public servant in whom citizens justifiably repose special trust and confidence, there is nothing in § 48-628 which makes such a rule applicable to a garbage collector who seeks unemployment benefits while he adjusts to his newfound status in life.
While the majority opinion may be emotionally satisfying, it is not legally defensible. Accordingly, I would reverse the *89judgment of the district court and direct the award of appropriate benefits.