(1) An individual shall be disqualified 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, and for the fourteen weeks immediately thereafter.

(2) If the commissioner finds that the individual was discharged for misconduct that was not gross, flagrant, and willful or unlawful but which included being under the influence of any intoxicating beverage or any controlled substance listed in section 28-405 not prescribed by a physician licensed to practice medicine or surgery while the individual is on the worksite or while the individual is engaged in work for the employer, the commissioner shall cancel all wage credits earned as a result of employment with the discharging employer.

(3) If the commissioner finds that the individual’s misconduct was gross, flagrant, and willful, or was unlawful, the commissioner shall totally disqualify such individual from receiving benefits with respect to wage credits earned prior to discharge for such misconduct.

Annotations

In analyzing whether an employee was discharged for misconduct connected with his or her work under this section, 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. Wright v. Southwest Airlines Co., 315 Neb. 911, 2 N.W.3d 186 (2024).

The question of whether an employee was discharged for misconduct connected with his or her work under this section is a mixed question of law and fact. Wright v. Southwest Airlines Co., 315 Neb. 911, 2 N.W.3d 186 (2024).

An employee's actions do not rise to the level of misconduct if the individual is merely unable to perform the duties of the job, but must involve at least culpable negligence, which, on a sliding scale, is much closer to an intentional disregard of the employer's interests than it is to mere negligence. Pinnacle Bancorp v. Moritz, 313 Neb. 906, 987 N.W.2d 277 (2023).

An employer's rule of conduct must clearly apply to off-duty conduct before its violation constitutes misconduct of such a degree to render the employee ineligible to partake in the beneficent purposes of the Employment Security Law. Pinnacle Bancorp v. Moritz, 313 Neb. 906, 987 N.W.2d 277 (2023).

In cases exploring whether an employer policy or order governing off duty conduct is reasonable, a court weighs the likely effect on an employer's interests against the imposition upon the employee's private life. Pinnacle Bancorp v. Moritz, 313 Neb. 906, 987 N.W.2d 277 (2023).

Misconduct connected with work is a breach of a duty owed to the employer, not to society in general. Pinnacle Bancorp v. Moritz, 313 Neb. 906, 987 N.W.2d 277 (2023).

An employee who is discharged for refusing an employer's order to complete a task is discharged for misconduct only if the order refused was reasonable under the circumstances. Badawi v. Albin, 311 Neb. 603, 973 N.W.2d 714 (2022).

In a disputed claim for unemployment benefits, the employer bears the burden of proving an individual is disqualified from receiving benefits because he or she was discharged for misconduct. Badawi v. Albin, 311 Neb. 603, 973 N.W.2d 714 (2022).

Misconduct 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 interests or of the employee's duties and obligations. Badawi v. Albin, 311 Neb. 603, 973 N.W.2d 714 (2022).