Ortega v. Albin

- 331 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
ORTEGA v. ALBIN
Cite as 318 Neb. 331
Matthew I. Ortega, appellant, v.
John Albin, Commissioner of Labor,
et al., appellees.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed January 10, 2025. 	No. S-24-020.
1. Employment Security: Judgments: Appeal and Error. In an appeal
from the appeal tribunal to the district court regarding unemployment
benefits, the district court conducts the review de novo on the record,
but on review by the Nebraska Court of Appeals or the Nebraska
Supreme Court, the judgment of the district court may be reversed,
vacated, or modified for errors appearing on the record.
2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing a judgment for errors
appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to
law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capri-
cious, nor unreasonable.
3. ____: ____. Whether a decision conforms to law is by definition a
question of law, in connection with which an appellate court reaches a
conclusion independent of that reached by the lower court.
4. Employment Security: Intent: Words and Phrases. The phrase “to
leave work voluntarily” means to intentionally sever the employment
relationship with the intent not to return to, or to intentionally terminate,
the employment.
5. Employment Security: Good Cause. It cannot be said that leaving
employment is without good cause if the reason for leaving, although it
may appear voluntary, has some justifiably reasonable connection with
or relation to the conditions of employment.
6. ____: ____. If an employee accepts employment in good faith and
through no fault or deficiency on his or her part, the workload becomes
an increasingly unreasonable burden so as to affect the health or
sense of well-being of the employee, voluntary termination does have
some justifiably reasonable connection with or relation to conditions of
employment and may be deemed for “good cause” under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 48-628.12(1)(a) (Reissue 2021).
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 08:19 AM CDT

- 332 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
ORTEGA v. ALBIN
Cite as 318 Neb. 331
7. Employment Security: Proof: Good Cause. In voluntary termination
cases, the burden of proof is on the employee to prove that the employ-
ee’s leaving was for good cause.
Appeal from the District Court for Hall County, John H.
Marsh, Judge. Affirmed.
Mark T. Bestul, of Legal Aid of Nebraska, for appellant.
Gerald W. Pankonin, Katie S. Thurber, Joel F. Green, and
Jacob H. Winters, of Nebraska Department of Labor, for appel-
lees John Albin and Nebraska Department of Labor.
Funke, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Papik, and
Freudenberg, JJ.
Funke, C.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
An employee appealed the denial of his request for unem-
ployment benefits, which he had applied for after voluntarily
quitting his job due to work-related stress. The Nebraska
Department of Labor’s Appeal Tribunal (Appeal Tribunal) and
the district court for Hall County, Nebraska, found that the
employee had not presented sufficient evidence to support a
finding of good cause, as required by statute. We affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
Matthew I. Ortega began his employment with a towing
company, commonly known as Island Towing, in January 2006.
There, he worked as an office manager under the direct super-
vision of the business’ owner, Chloe Aguilar. Ortega worked in
this position for roughly 17 years before providing his 90-day
notice and voluntarily quitting on December 31, 2022.
1. Application for and Denial
of Unemployment Benefits
On January 4, 2023, following his last day at Island Towing,
Ortega filed an application for unemployment benefits with

- 333 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
ORTEGA v. ALBIN
Cite as 318 Neb. 331
the Nebraska Department of Labor (the Department). On the
application, Ortega provided the following rationale:
I quit my job [b]ecause of mental health conditions
that [were] preventing me from completing . . . my job
100%. Quitting helped me protect my mental health and
to escape that violence that ate at me internally day after
day. There [have] been days that I could not sleep[.] I
would hyperventilate when I would have to deal with
the individual or individuals. I put NO blame on my
employer as this was beyond their control it was just
unfortunate that[] the situation could never be corrected.
The Department denied the request, finding that Ortega did
not have good cause to quit his job and that he therefore had
not met the statutory requirements necessary to qualify for
unemployment benefits.
2. Appeal Tribunal
Ortega appealed the denial to the Appeal Tribunal. At the
hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, both Ortega and his super-
visor, Aguilar, testified.
(a) Ortega’s Testimony
Ortega explained that as office manager, he fielded calls
from angry customers and had frequently been “verbally
abused [and] verbally accused [and it] just [got] mentally
draining.” However, it was not these interactions that bothered
Ortega. He testified that instead, his stress stemmed from inter-
actions with “the people with authority over [him].” Ortega
testified that he quit because of negative interactions with the
local sheriff and police departments, collectively referred to as
“law enforcement.” On this point, Ortega’s testimony detailed
two incidents where Island Towing had towed an unmarked
police vehicle. Ortega testified that in one instance, occurring
roughly 2½ years prior to the hearing, the captain of the police
department telephoned Ortega, screamed at him, and threat-
ened to have him arrested for towing the vehicle. Ortega also

- 334 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
ORTEGA v. ALBIN
Cite as 318 Neb. 331
detailed an analogous, albeit less severe, incident that occurred
at an unspecified time.
Even beyond those two incidents, Ortega explained that he
had to deal with law enforcement on a nearly monthly basis
and that although not all interactions were negative, each
interaction still caused him to “shake, hyperventilate [and]
feel sick to [his] stomach.” He further explained that the stress
from these interactions would bother him all day and that it
stressed him “more . . . than it should.” Ortega testified that
these conditions, and the stress they caused, inhibited him from
completing his work. He elaborated, saying, “I’m there to do
my job a hundred and ten percent. And, by having these issues,
I couldn’t do it anymore. So, I mean, to me, why am I going
to stick around when I cannot do my work anymore based off
those facts?”
Ortega’s testimony detailed the facts that he had informed
Aguilar of each incident and that she had tried to address the
matters with law enforcement, but that these complaints had
been unsuccessful. Ortega also lamented that “there [was] no
way to relieve stress at work . . . . If [Aguilar] could have
fixed it, she would have fixed it.” He further explained that he
was on call for Island Towing 24 hours per day, 7 days a week,
so there was no way for him to get away from the stress, even
if he was not in the office.
When asked by the Appeal Tribunal whether he had sought
the care of a doctor or mental health professional because of
his stress, Ortega denied having sought such help.
(b) Aguilar’s Testimony
During her testimony, Aguilar confirmed Ortega’s descrip-
tion of events with law enforcement saying, “There’s actually
more than what he’s told you. . . . [I]t’s absolutely ridiculous.
. . . [T]hey’re ongoing. . . . I don’t know how to fix it. . . . He
is one hundred percent correct.”
Aguilar testified that Ortega was not the only one in the busi-
ness who had experienced difficulties with law enforcement,

- 335 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
ORTEGA v. ALBIN
Cite as 318 Neb. 331
although he handled the brunt of those incidents. She explained
how she had previously hired lawyers to aid in resolving the
situation, but that the lawyers had been “shut down” by law
enforcement. Aguilar also testified that she was working on
filing a complaint with the sheriff’s department at the time of
the hearing. Based on the previous failed attempts to resolve
the situation and alleviate stress, however, Aguilar concluded,
“[T]here is no way to relieve [stress]. . . . You don’t.”
When asked whether she believed Ortega had a legiti-
mate reason for quitting, she stated, “Oh, absolutely.” Aguilar
explained that in 2018, the stress had so impacted her, as well,
that she took a break from her business and left Ortega in
charge for a couple months.
(c) Decision of Appeal Tribunal
After the hearing, the Appeal Tribunal affirmed the denial
of unemployment benefits for Ortega. Although the Appeal
Tribunal agreed that Ortega’s complaints were “substantial”
and that they did relate to his work conditions, it nonetheless
concluded that Ortega had not presented evidence sufficient
to meet his burden of proof. The Appeal Tribunal held that
because Ortega’s work-related stress was a health issue, it
necessitated substantiating medical documentation and a show-
ing that alternative avenues for relieving the stress had been
pursued before quitting. Since such evidence was not provided,
the Appeal Tribunal determined Ortega did not have good
cause to terminate his employment.
Ortega appealed to the district court.
3. District Court Order
Largely following the reasoning of the Appeal Tribunal, the
district court concluded that Ortega did not have good cause
to voluntarily quit his job, and it therefore affirmed the denial
of benefits. In its opinion, the district court defined Ortega’s
stress as a “health concern.” As such, the court held that medi-
cal documentation must be provided to carry Ortega’s burden
of proof. The district court also reiterated the sentiment from

- 336 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
ORTEGA v. ALBIN
Cite as 318 Neb. 331
the Appeal Tribunal that Ortega had failed to preserve the
employer-employee relationship by not sufficiently pursuing
alternative avenues, such as a leave of absence or a modifi-
cation of his job duties, so as to limit his contact with law
enforcement.
Ortega appealed this decision, and we moved the matter to
our docket. 1
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Ortega assigns, restated, that the district court erred in (1)
affirming the Appeal Tribunal’s decision that Ortega volun-
tarily quit his employment without good cause, (2) requir-
ing medical evidence to substantiate Ortega’s work-related
stress, and (3) determining that Ortega failed to preserve the
employer-employee relationship.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] In an appeal from the appeal tribunal to the district
court regarding unemployment benefits, the district court con-
ducts the review de novo on the record, but on review by the
Nebraska Court of Appeals or the Nebraska Supreme Court,
the judgment of the district court may be reversed, vacated, or
modified for errors appearing on the record. 2
[2] When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the
record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to law,
is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary,
capricious, nor unreasonable. 3
[3] Whether a decision conforms to law is by definition
a question of law, in connection with which an appellate
court reaches a conclusion independent of that reached by the
lower court. 4
1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106 (Cum. Supp. 2024).
2 Wright v. Southwest Airlines Co., 315 Neb. 911, 2 N.W.3d 186 (2024).
3 Id.
4 Id.

- 337 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
ORTEGA v. ALBIN
Cite as 318 Neb. 331
V. ANALYSIS
There is no question in this case that Ortega left his work
voluntarily and that he did so because of work-related stress
stemming from interactions with law enforcement. As detailed
above, Ortega assigns three separate errors. We need not reach
the merits of the last two assignments, regarding the require-
ments to present medical documentation and to take steps
to preserve the employer-employee relationship, because the
issue of good cause is dispositive. Therefore, we also do not
detail the parties’ arguments on those points. Assuming with-
out deciding that there are no such requirements, the district
court cannot be said to have erred in affirming the denial of
benefits because the record shows that Ortega failed to sat-
isfy his burden of proof that there was good cause for leaving
his employment.
1. Legal Framework
[4-6] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-628.12 (Reissue 2021) provides
as follows: “An individual shall be disqualified for benefits
. . . [f]or the week in which he or she has left work volun-
tarily without good cause, if so found by the commissioner,
and for the thirteen weeks immediately thereafter.” The phrase
“to leave work voluntarily” means to intentionally sever the
employment relationship with the intent not to return to, or
to intentionally terminate, the employment. 5 Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 48-628.13(12) (Reissue 2021) provides that good cause
can be found when, among other things, “[e]quity and good
conscience demand a finding of good cause.” We have also
explained that it cannot be said that leaving employment is
without good cause if the reason for leaving, although it may
appear voluntary, has some justifiably reasonable connection
with or relation to the conditions of employment. 6 For exam-
ple, if an employee accepts employment in good faith and
5 McClemens v. United Parcel Serv., 218 Neb. 689, 358 N.W.2d 748 (1984).
6 Id. (citing Glionna v. Chizek, 204 Neb. 37, 281 N.W.2d 220 (1979)).

- 338 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
ORTEGA v. ALBIN
Cite as 318 Neb. 331
through no fault or deficiency on his or her part, the workload
becomes an increasingly unreasonable burden so as to affect
the health or sense of well-being of the employee, voluntary
termination does have some justifiably reasonable connec-
tion with or relation to conditions of employment and may be
deemed for good cause. 7 However, we have never held that
general and subjective dissatisfaction with one’s employment
is good cause; one’s reasons for termination must be “neces-
sitous and compelling.” 8
[7] In voluntary termination cases, the burden of proof is
on the employee to prove that the employee’s leaving was for
good cause. 9
2. Parties’ Arguments
Ortega asserts that under § 48-628.13(12), equity and good
conscience permit a finding of good cause in this case. Ortega
argues that he had good cause to quit because the negative
interactions with law enforcement had stressed him to the
point that his mental health suffered, making his employ-
ment conditions an increasingly unreasonable burden. Ortega
points to his testimony that this stress caused him to hyper-
ventilate, shake, and feel sick to his stomach. Ortega further
points to his and Aguilar’s testimony that this stress occurred
through no fault of his own and that it could not be mitigated.
Accordingly, Ortega would have us conclude that the inter-
actions with law enforcement created stress which affected
his health or sense of well-being such that his employment
had become an increasingly unreasonable burden sufficient to
establish good cause.
Conversely, the Department argues that Ortega has not met
his burden of establishing good cause, because his reasons
7 Glionna, supra note 6.
8 See id. at 38, 281 N.W.2d at 222. See, also, Stackley v. State, 222 Neb.
767, 386 N.W.2d 884 (1986).
9 See McClemens, supra note 5.

- 339 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
ORTEGA v. ALBIN
Cite as 318 Neb. 331
for voluntarily quitting were not necessitous and compelling.
More specifically, the Department asserts that there is insuf-
ficient evidence to conclude that the conditions of Ortega’s
employment were sufficiently harmful to his health or sense
of well-being such that his workload can be said to have
become an increasingly unreasonable burden. It points to the
facts that Ortega continued working at Island Towing for 2½
years after the alleged incident with law enforcement and that
he was able to give a 90-day notice of his intent to resign as
proof that there was a lack of necessity and compulsion for
Ortega to leave his job. This overarching lack of urgency, the
Department argues, shows that Ortega’s proffered reasons do
not establish good cause.
3. Ortega Has Not Met His Burden
of Establishing Good Cause
Based on the record in this case, we cannot conclude that the
district court erred in determining that Ortega failed to prove
good cause for leaving his employment. Accordingly, we also
cannot conclude that the decision does not conform to law, is
not supported by competent evidence, or is arbitrary, capri-
cious, or unreasonable, because Ortega has failed to meet his
burden of proof.
The record before the district court provided few facts relat-
ing to both the number and the substance of Ortega’s interac-
tions with law enforcement, making it difficult to assess the
burdensomeness of his work conditions. Generally speaking,
Ortega made statements to the effect that his interactions with
law enforcement took place “frequently” and “all the time” and
that there were “too many” such interactions to keep track of.
Despite this, Ortega’s testimony provided details relating to
only two events. As explained above, both incidents dealt with
occasions when Island Towing had towed an unmarked police
vehicle. In the first instance, once having discovered that the
vehicle had been towed, a law enforcement officer allegedly
screamed at Ortega and threatened to have him arrested. Of

- 340 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
ORTEGA v. ALBIN
Cite as 318 Neb. 331
that event, Ortega testified, “[T]hat day was the day that just
. . . eats at my mental health.” When asked whether the officer
had ever threatened him again, Ortega admitted, “Never.” This
singular interaction was estimated to have taken place 2½ years
prior to the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal.
Of the second event, however, Ortega did not describe it as
a negative interaction. Instead, he stated, “[T]hat supervisor
handled it really professionally, and they just sent somebody
to pick [the vehicle] up.” Ortega did not recall when this event
took place.
Aguilar’s testimony generally confirmed Ortega’s narrative.
She testified that such incidents were “ongoing” and that there
were “more than what he’s told you.” Aguilar’s testimony
did not, however, mention any dates or the substance of any
of the interactions. Aguilar did mention that she was in the
process of filing a complaint with the sheriff’s department at
the time of the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, but the
record does not clarify whether the complaint was in regard
to incidents involving Ortega, or if the complaint related to
separate events.
Relying on the evidence presented, the district court con-
cluded that Ortega had provided specific details relating to
only one hostile and threatening interaction with law enforce-
ment. Even assuming there were other negative interactions
with law enforcement, the district court was not provided
with any information regarding them, thereby limiting their
relevance. Further, the district court noted that the singularly
detailed negative interaction occurred roughly 2½ years prior
to Ortega’s voluntary termination and subsequent hearing.
As mentioned, the burden of proof in this case rests on
Ortega; it is his burden to present evidence sufficient to support
a finding of good cause. Based on the record detailed above,
however, we cannot say that the district court erred in finding
that Ortega failed to meet his burden.

- 341 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
318 Nebraska Reports
ORTEGA v. ALBIN
Cite as 318 Neb. 331
VI. CONCLUSION
Because the district court did not err in finding that Ortega
failed to meet his burden to show that he voluntarily left his
employment for good cause, we affirm the district court’s judg-
ment denying unemployment benefits to Ortega.
Affirmed.