An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week, only if the Commissioner of Labor finds:
(1) He or she has registered for work at an employment office, is actively searching for work, and thereafter reports at an employment office in accordance with such rules and regulations as the commissioner may adopt and promulgate. The commissioner may, by rule and regulation, waive or alter any of the requirements of this subdivision as to individuals attached to regular jobs and as to such other types of cases or situations if the commissioner finds that compliance with such requirements would be oppressive or inconsistent with the purposes of the Employment Security Law;
(2) He or she has made a claim for benefits in accordance with section 48-629;
(3)(a) He or she is able to work and is available for work.
(b) No individual, who is otherwise eligible, shall be deemed ineligible, or unavailable for work, because he or she is on vacation without pay during such week, if such vacation is not the result of his or her own action as distinguished from any collective action by a collective-bargaining agent or other action beyond his or her individual control, and regardless of whether he or she was notified of the vacation at the time of his or her hiring.
(c) An individual who is otherwise eligible shall not be deemed unavailable for work or failing to engage in an active work search solely because such individual is seeking part-time work if the majority of the weeks of work in an individual's base period include part-time work. For purposes of this subdivision, seeking only part-time work shall mean seeking less than full-time work having comparable hours to the individual's part-time work in the base period, except that the individual must be available for work at least twenty hours per week.
(d) Receipt of a non-service-connected total disability pension by a veteran at the age of sixty-five or more shall not of itself bar the veteran from benefits as not able to work.
(e) An otherwise eligible individual while engaged in a training course approved for him or her by the commissioner shall be considered available for work for the purposes of this section.
(f) An inmate sentenced to and in custody of a penal or custodial institution shall be considered unavailable for work for purposes of this section;
(4) He or she has been unemployed for a waiting period of one week. No week shall be counted as a week of unemployment for the purpose of this subdivision (a) unless it occurs within the benefit year, which includes the week with respect to which he or she claims payment of benefits, (b) if benefits have been paid with respect thereto, or (c) unless the individual was eligible for benefits with respect thereto, as provided in sections 48-627, 48-627.01, 48-628, and 48-628.02 to 48-628.12, except for the requirements of this subdivision; and
(5) He or she is participating in reemployment services at no cost to such individual as directed by the commissioner, such as job search assistance services, if the individual has been determined to be likely to exhaust regular benefits and to need reemployment services pursuant to a profiling system established by rule and regulation of the commissioner which is in compliance with section 303(j)(1) of the federal Social Security Act, unless the commissioner determines that:
(a) The individual has completed such services; or
(b) There is justifiable cause for the claimant's failure to participate in such services.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1947–2013 · leading case:
Sorensen v. Meyer, 370 N.W.2d 173 (Neb. 1985).
Sorensen v. Meyer, 370 N.W.2d 173 (Neb. 1985).
· cites it 16× “§§ 48-627 and 48-628. These continuing eligibility requirements are not at issue in this case.”
Heimsoth v. Kellwood Co., 318 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 1982).
· cites it 4× “Heimsoth was correctly told when he first applied for benefits that he would have to be unemployed in order to qualify. It appears he was not told, however, that he would remain ineligible for unemployment benefits unless, in addition to being unemployed, he was in fact able to…”
Mem'l Hosp. of Dodge Cnty. v. Porter, 548 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “The issue before the court in Sorensen was whether a lump sum severance payment must be prorated under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-627 (e) (Reissue 1993), which provides monetary eligibility requirements.”
Hunter v. Miller, 27 N.W.2d 638 (Neb. 1947).
· cites it 4× “The principal question presented is this: Was she “available for work” within the meaning of that phrase in section 48-627, R. S. 1943? The appeal tribunal «denied her the benefits of the act.”
Gilbert v. Hanlon, 335 N.W.2d 548 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-627 (Reissue 1978) specifically provides that an unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the commissioner finds that “He is able to work, and is available for work.”
Mem'l Hosp. of Dodge Cnty. v. Porter, 557 N.W.2d 21 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 2× “In Sorensen , this court compared the statutory provision of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-627 (e) (Reissue 1984), which was silent on the issue, with § 48-628(e) (Reissue 1984), which mandated that a lump-sum severance payment be prorated when determining disqualification.”
Tuma v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 409 N.W.2d 306 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Section 48-627(c) provides that a person receiving such benefits must be able to work and available for work.”
Seldin Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. Chizek, 303 N.W.2d 300 (Neb. 1981).
· cites it 3× “um and normally has a regularly organized body of students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are carried on, as a student in a full-time program, taken for credit at such institution, which combines academic instruction with work experience, if such…”
Hanlon v. Boden, 306 N.W.2d 858 (Neb. 1981).
· cites it 2× “After hearing, the District Court specifically found that Boden was unemployed as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-627 (Reissue 1978) in that his contract of employment with the Omaha Symphony Association expired at the conclusion of the last scheduled service for the Omaha…”
Ponderosa Villa v. Hughes, 399 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 7× “Although no express reference to statutory authority for the disqualification of Hughes was made, the language the district court used in the formulation of its findings seems to intimate that Hughes failed to meet the qualifications spelled out in either Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”
Robinson v. Comm'r of Labor, 675 N.W.2d 683 (Neb. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-627 (3) (Reissue 1998) provides that an unemployed individual is eligible for benefits only when “[h]e or she is able to work and is available for work.”
LECOUNA v. Cramer, 714 N.W.2d 786 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “” See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-627 (3) (Reissue 2004).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-627(3) — 1 case
Robinson v. Comm'r of Labor, 675 N.W.2d 683 (Neb. 2004).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-627 (3) (Reissue 1998) provides that an unemployed individual is eligible for benefits only when “[h]e or she is able to work and is available for work.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-627(c) — 2 cases
Tuma v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., 409 N.W.2d 306 (Neb. 1987).
“Section 48-627(c) provides that a person receiving such benefits must be able to work and available for work.”
Ponderosa Villa v. Hughes, 399 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 1987).
“Although no express reference to statutory authority for the disqualification of Hughes was made, the language the district court used in the formulation of its findings seems to intimate that Hughes failed to meet the qualifications spelled out in either Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-627(e) — 3 cases
Sorensen v. Meyer, 370 N.W.2d 173 (Neb. 1985).
“§§ 48-627 and 48-628. These continuing eligibility requirements are not at issue in this case.”
Mem'l Hosp. of Dodge Cnty. v. Porter, 548 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
“The issue before the court in Sorensen was whether a lump sum severance payment must be prorated under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-627 (e) (Reissue 1993), which provides monetary eligibility requirements.”
Seldin Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. Chizek, 303 N.W.2d 300 (Neb. 1981).
“um and normally has a regularly organized body of students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are carried on, as a student in a full-time program, taken for credit at such institution, which combines academic instruction with work experience, if such…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.