Chevalier v. Metropolitan Util. Dist.
24 Neb. Ct. App. 874
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Shala Chevalier, a long-time employee of Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha (MUD), alleged she contracted Lyme disease and suffered disability-related harassment and attendance issues beginning in 2006.
- In 2010 Chevalier applied for a supervisor of field engineering promotion; Henn (director) selected David Stroebele, a male applicant, instead. Chevalier filed NEOC/EEOC charges alleging discrimination and later sued in state court asserting gender discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation (including an FMLA retaliation claim).
- MUD relied on candidates’ personnel files, absence records, recent performance appraisals, interviews, and qualification comparisons to justify hiring Stroebele; appraisals criticized Chevalier’s professionalism, attendance, and workplace behavior.
- The jury found for MUD on all claims; the district court entered judgment and denied Chevalier’s motion for new trial.
- On appeal Chevalier challenged (1) denial of a directed verdict on her FMLA retaliation claim, (2) admission of MUD expert testimony disputing her Lyme disease diagnosis, (3) sufficiency of evidence on gender-discrimination/pretext, (4) exclusion of her transcript of a recorded meeting (exhibit 133), and (5) denial of new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directed verdict on FMLA retaliation | Chevalier argued evidence undisputedly showed Henn considered her FMLA leave in denying promotion | MUD argued there was no evidence Chevalier ever had FMLA‑approved absences for Lyme disease and Henn only considered general attendance | Denied — reasonable minds could differ; absences were coded as sick days, not FMLA, so causation was not indisputable |
| Admission of expert disputing Lyme diagnosis | Chevalier contended MUD had conceded she took qualifying FMLA leave and was estopped from challenging Lyme diagnosis | MUD argued (and offered) expert evidence that Chevalier did not have Lyme and that she put the diagnosis at issue | Admitted — Chevalier opened the door by making Lyme/disability an issue; no Daubert challenge was made |
| Sufficiency/pretext for gender discrimination | Chevalier argued Stroebele was less qualified and MUD’s reasons (appraisals, education requirement change) were pretextual | MUD contended Stroebele met education/experience requirements and selection was based on legitimate factors (interviews, appraisals, attendance, locating experience) | Verdict upheld — jury reasonably credited MUD’s legitimate nondiscriminatory explanations; sufficient evidence supported finding no pretext |
| Exclusion of plaintiff’s transcript of recorded meeting (exhibit 133) | Chevalier argued transcript admissible because original recording was muffled/unusable | MUD objected under best‑evidence and foundation rules, arguing original recording (or proper authentication) required | Exclusion affirmed — best evidence rule required original recording; transcript exclusion did not unfairly prejudice Chevalier; other testimony covered the meeting |
Key Cases Cited
- Balames v. Ginn, 290 Neb. 682 (standard for directed verdict)
- Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Group, 293 Neb. 890 (standard for admissibility and review of evidentiary rulings)
- Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (burden‑shifting and pretext analysis under state FEPA)
- Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home v. Agnew, 256 Neb. 394 (adoption of McDonnell Douglas framework under Nebraska law)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishing burdens in disparate treatment cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (evidence of pretext and burden to prove employer’s reason unworthy of credence)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (standards for admitting expert testimony)
- Smith v. Allen Health Sys., 302 F.3d 827 (FMLA retaliation actionable)