Twitter Posts Don’t Prevent Unemployment Benefits

The Nebraska Supreme Court has affirmed the eligibility for unemployment benefits of a discharged bank employee fired for twitter posts on his private account.

The posts

The Twitter posts tagged the incumbent mayor, whose husband had recently died from suicide. In one post, it was suggested the mayor “take your husband’s lead . . . he had a good idea.” Another post stated that “your husband couldn’t stand you why should we?” and that “everyone will blow their brains out if you’re still the mayor.”

Pinnacle confirmed Moritz was the owner of the Twitter account after seeing a picture posted on the account of Moritz’ son attending a local basketball game. Pinnacle’s investigation revealed other posts on Moritz’ Twitter account beginning in 2020 in which disparaging remarks were made about public figures. The posts included calling the chief executive officer of a local hospital “fat” and calling a politician a “cunt” who had “tried to [expletive]” a former political commentator’s “corpse to attempt to extract sperm and create the antichrist.”

In a short telephone conversation on May 3, 2021, Pinnacle informed Moritz he was being terminated from his employment because of his social media activity. Moritz was not told what the posts were or on what platform they were made. Moritz asked if there was room for discussion and was told that there was not.

The court majority

No one disputes on appeal that the posts at issue here were an inappropriate and offensive means of political discourse. However, misconduct connected with work is a breach of a duty owed to the employer, not to society in general, and we cannot create special rules for what we may find distasteful. That the off-duty posts were more vitriolic than civil is relevant only to the extent the tone of the off-duty discourse violated a clear prohibition by Pinnacle, which was reasonable under all the circumstances and reasonably designed to protect Pinnacle’s business relationships.

But

The district court did not err in finding that Moritz did not commit misconduct connected with his work and, accordingly, that he was not disqualified from unemployment benefits. We affirm.

Justice Cassell dissented

The majority here focuses on minutiae and misses the bigger picture. It is true that the bank officer did not use the bank’s equipment or post his comments from work. But the bank’s policies made clear that its officers were subject to higher standards than other employees. The bank was entitled to demand that its officers regulate their behavior to protect the bank’s reputation. This bank officer failed to do so, and his conduct harmed the bank’s reputation. I would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the cause with instructions to reverse the decision of the appeal tribunal and reinstate the 14-week disqualification.

The case is PINNACLE BANCORP V. MORITZ Cite as 313 Neb. 906 (Mike Frisch)