(1) An individual shall be disqualified for benefits for any week of unemployment in which the commissioner finds he or she has failed, without good cause, to apply for available, suitable work when so directed by the employment office or the commissioner, to respond to an offer for a job interview for suitable work within one week, to respond to an offer for a job for suitable work within one week, to appear for a previously scheduled job interview for suitable work without notifying the prospective employer of the need to cancel or reschedule the interview, to accept suitable work offered him or her, or to return to his or her customary self-employment, if any, and for the twelve weeks immediately thereafter. The total benefit amount to which he or she is then entitled shall be reduced by an amount equal to the number of weeks for which he or she has been disqualified by the commissioner. The commissioner may consider the manner of communication established between the individual and the prospective employer about how the interview will be conducted or a job offer will be extended in determining if an individual failed to appear for a previously scheduled job interview without notifying the prospective employer of the need to cancel or reschedule the interview or failed to respond to an offer for a job.
(2) In determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual, the commissioner shall consider the following:
(d) His or her length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in his or her customary occupation; and
(e) The distance of the available work from his or her residence.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Employment Security Law, no work shall be deemed suitable and benefits shall not be denied under such law to any otherwise eligible individual for refusing to accept new work under any of the following conditions:
(a) If the position offered is vacant due directly to a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute;
(b) If the wages, hours, or other conditions of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality; or
(c) If, as a condition of being employed, the individual would be required to join a company union or to resign from or refrain from joining any bona fide labor organization.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this section relating to failure to apply for or a refusal to accept suitable work, no otherwise eligible individual shall be denied benefits with respect to any week in which he or she is in training with the approval of the commissioner.
(5) No individual shall be disqualified for refusing to apply for available, full-time work or accept full-time work under subsection (1) of this section 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 subsection, 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
62
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1949–2022 · leading case:
Nebco, Inc. v. Murphy, 784 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. 2010).
Nebco, Inc. v. Murphy, 784 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. 2010).
· cites it 13× “An adjudicator for the Nebraska Department of Labor concluded in a notice of determination dated August 13, 2008, that because her actions amounted to misconduct, Murphy was disqualified from receiving benefits under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-628(2) (Cum.Supp.2008) for the week her…”
Sorensen v. Meyer, 370 N.W.2d 173 (Neb. 1985).
· cites it 12× “They are found in § 48-628 and include disqualifications for periods during which a worker receives remuneration while unemployed, voluntarily leaves employment without good cause, is discharged for misconduct, or refuses suitable employment, among others.”
Gilbert v. Hanlon, 335 N.W.2d 548 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 16× “This appeal presents the question as to whether an employee who voluntarily terminates part-time employment, while being discharged from full-time employment, thereby becomes disqualified for any benefits pursuant to the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (Cum. Supp. 1980).”
Mem'l Hosp. of Dodge Cnty. v. Porter, 557 N.W.2d 21 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 17× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Restated, Memorial Hospital claims the Court of Appeals erred in (1) construing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (e)(2) (Cum. Supp.”
Mem'l Hosp. of Dodge Cnty. v. Porter, 548 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 18× “On March 20, 1995, the Hospital requested that the Department determine whether Porter’s receipt of workers’ compensation should disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (e)(2) (Reissue 1993) of the Nebraska Employment Security Law.”
Poore v. City of Minden, 464 N.W.2d 791 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 16× “The basis for the determination by the Department of Labor that Poore was not entitled to benefits was that his conduct constituted gross misconduct pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-628 (Reissue 1988). That section provides in part as follows: An individual shall be disqualified…”
IBP, Inc. v. Aanenson, 452 N.W.2d 59 (Neb. 1990).
· cites it 19× “89-242, the commissioner originally denied the lockout claimants’ applications for benefits, based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (d) (Cum. Supp. 1986).”
Nuss v. Sorensen, 358 N.W.2d 752 (Neb. 1984).
· cites it 24× “2d 548, 551 (1983): We believe that a more appropriate reading of both the language of § 48-628 and the intent and purpose of the Nebraska Employment Security Law (Neb.”
Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Polinsky, 530 N.W.2d 637 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 6× “The remaining subsections of § 48-628, (b) through (k), outline other behaviors or scenarios which disqualify an employee from receiving benefits and are not applicable here.”
Barrios v. Comm'r of Labor of the Neb. Dep't of Labor, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 835 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 4× “After the Department completed its investigation, however, an adjudicator for the Department concluded in a notice of determination dated May 27, 2016, that because Barrios had voluntarily left his employment with Custom Rental without good cause, he was disqualified from…”
Smith v. Sorensen, 386 N.W.2d 5 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 10× “*602 § 48-628(b) (Cum. Supp. 1982). Section 48-628(b) of the Nebraska Employment Security Law provides that one shall be disqualified for receiving benefits for “the week in which he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her work .”
A. Borchman Sons v. Carpenter, 89 N.W.2d 123 (Neb. 1958).
· cites it 12× “These appeals involve the construction and application of section 48-628, R. R. S. 1943, of the Employment Security Law.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(1)(a) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(2) — 4 cases
Nebco, Inc. v. Murphy, 784 N.W.2d 447 (Neb. 2010).
“An adjudicator for the Nebraska Department of Labor concluded in a notice of determination dated August 13, 2008, that because her actions amounted to misconduct, Murphy was disqualified from receiving benefits under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-628(2) (Cum.Supp.2008) for the week her…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(5)(b) — 1 case
Mem'l Hosp. of Dodge Cnty. v. Porter, 557 N.W.2d 21 (Neb. 1996).
“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Restated, Memorial Hospital claims the Court of Appeals erred in (1) construing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (e)(2) (Cum. Supp.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(7) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(8) — 2 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(8)(a) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(9) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(a) — 7 cases
Gilbert v. Hanlon, 335 N.W.2d 548 (Neb. 1983).
“This appeal presents the question as to whether an employee who voluntarily terminates part-time employment, while being discharged from full-time employment, thereby becomes disqualified for any benefits pursuant to the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (Cum. Supp. 1980).”
Nuss v. Sorensen, 358 N.W.2d 752 (Neb. 1984).
“2d 548, 551 (1983): We believe that a more appropriate reading of both the language of § 48-628 and the intent and purpose of the Nebraska Employment Security Law (Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(a)(1) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(a)(l) — 5 cases
Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Polinsky, 530 N.W.2d 637 (Neb. 1995).
“The remaining subsections of § 48-628, (b) through (k), outline other behaviors or scenarios which disqualify an employee from receiving benefits and are not applicable here.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(b) — 11 cases
Smith v. Sorensen, 386 N.W.2d 5 (Neb. 1986).
“*602 § 48-628(b) (Cum. Supp. 1982). Section 48-628(b) of the Nebraska Employment Security Law provides that one shall be disqualified for receiving benefits for “the week in which he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her work .”
Poore v. City of Minden, 464 N.W.2d 791 (Neb. 1991).
“The basis for the determination by the Department of Labor that Poore was not entitled to benefits was that his conduct constituted gross misconduct pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-628 (Reissue 1988). That section provides in part as follows: An individual shall be disqualified…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(c) — 4 cases
IBP, Inc. v. Aanenson, 452 N.W.2d 59 (Neb. 1990).
“89-242, the commissioner originally denied the lockout claimants’ applications for benefits, based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (d) (Cum. Supp. 1986).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(d) — 4 cases
IBP, Inc. v. Aanenson, 452 N.W.2d 59 (Neb. 1990).
“89-242, the commissioner originally denied the lockout claimants’ applications for benefits, based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (d) (Cum. Supp. 1986).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(e) — 3 cases
Sorensen v. Meyer, 370 N.W.2d 173 (Neb. 1985).
“They are found in § 48-628 and include disqualifications for periods during which a worker receives remuneration while unemployed, voluntarily leaves employment without good cause, is discharged for misconduct, or refuses suitable employment, among others.”
Mem'l Hosp. of Dodge Cnty. v. Porter, 557 N.W.2d 21 (Neb. 1996).
“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Restated, Memorial Hospital claims the Court of Appeals erred in (1) construing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (e)(2) (Cum. Supp.”
Mem'l Hosp. of Dodge Cnty. v. Porter, 548 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
“On March 20, 1995, the Hospital requested that the Department determine whether Porter’s receipt of workers’ compensation should disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (e)(2) (Reissue 1993) of the Nebraska Employment Security Law.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(e)(2) — 2 cases
Mem'l Hosp. of Dodge Cnty. v. Porter, 548 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
“On March 20, 1995, the Hospital requested that the Department determine whether Porter’s receipt of workers’ compensation should disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (e)(2) (Reissue 1993) of the Nebraska Employment Security Law.”
Mem'l Hosp. of Dodge Cnty. v. Porter, 557 N.W.2d 21 (Neb. 1996).
“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Restated, Memorial Hospital claims the Court of Appeals erred in (1) construing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628 (e)(2) (Cum. Supp.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(h) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(h)(1) — 2 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(h)(2) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628(l)(a) — 1 case
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.