Badawi v. Albin, 311 Neb. 603

Badawi worked at JBS from January 2019 until May 19, 2020, earning about $18.55/hr and working ~38–40 hours weekly.
In May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, JBS asked Badawi to perform his regular duties plus the duties of an absent coworker; Badawi refused, saying performing both jobs simultaneously was impossible.
JBS suspended Badawi multiple times, then effectively discharged him; Badawi applied for unemployment benefits and the Department of Labor issued a disqualifying separation determination.
At the telephonic appeal-tribunal hearing JBS did not appear; Badawi testified (with many portions of the record marked “indiscernible”), and the tribunal found misconduct for refusing to work two positions and disqualified him for 14 weeks.
The district court affirmed on de novo review; the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the employer bears the burden to prove discharge for misconduct and (2) the record lacked competent evidence that the order to do two jobs was reasonable or that Badawi violated a policy requiring dual-job performance.

Issue	Badawi's Argument	JBS / Department's Argument	Held
Who bears the burden to prove discharge for misconduct under § 48-628.10?	Employer did not meet its burden because it did not appear at the tribunal.	Employer and Dept.: employer bears the burden to prove misconduct.	Court: employer bears the burden to prove misconduct.
Did Badawi’s refusal to perform two jobs constitute misconduct?	Refusal was reasonable because performing both jobs simultaneously was impossible; evidence was insufficient.	Refusal was insubordination; policy required temporary filling of other positions so refusal was misconduct.	Court: insufficient competent evidence that the order was reasonable or that policy required dual performance; reversal.

NEBCO, Inc. v. Murphy, 280 Neb. 145, 784 N.W.2d 447 (2010) (prior Nebraska decisions implied employer bears burden to prove misconduct)
Great Plains Container Co. v. Hiatt, 225 Neb. 558, 407 N.W.2d 166 (1987) (violation of rule is misconduct only when rule reasonably protects employer’s business interests)
Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. 001 v. Dutcher, 254 Neb. 317, 576 N.W.2d 469 (1998) (distinguishing general misconduct from gross misconduct for unemployment disqualification)
Meyers v. Nebraska State Penitentiary, 280 Neb. 958, 791 N.W.2d 607 (2010) (definition and elements of misconduct for § 48-628.10)
Lang v. Howard County, 287 Neb. 66, 840 N.W.2d 876 (2013) (standard of review for district court on appeal-tribunal record under the APA)