Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist.
294 Neb. 870
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Kristina Hartley (female) sued Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha (MUD) under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act alleging gender discrimination after being passed over for promotion to Supervisor of Field Engineering in favor of David Stroebele (male).
- The posted job added a new requirement (recent utility locating experience within 5 years) shortly before hiring; Hartley and two other female applicants (Chevalier, Meisinger) challenged MUD’s selection of Stroebele as pretextual.
- Hartley had substantially more seniority, supervisory experience, and strong historical performance appraisals; Stroebele had less education, less seniority, and recent positive appraisal but some chargeable locating hits.
- Employer decisionmaker Stephanie Henn cited Hartley’s alleged poor listening/communication, emotional reactions, lack of recent locating motivation, and inability to handle complex projects as reasons for selecting Stroebele.
- District court denied MUD’s directed verdict and new trial motions; jury returned verdict for Hartley with damages; district court awarded attorney fees to Hartley; MUD appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of postpromotion performance evidence and testimony (Blackwell, Johnson) | Postpromotion evaluations and coworkers’ testimony rebut employer’s asserted deficiencies and show ongoing competence | Such evidence is irrelevant and lacks proper foundation because it postdates the promotion decision | Court upheld exclusion as within trial court discretion; evidence was properly limited to predecision performance |
| Sufficiency of evidence that employer’s reasons were pretextual (directed verdict/new trial) | Hartley argued she and other female applicants were better qualified and that timing of appraisals, changed job criteria, inconsistent explanations, and prior positive reviews showed pretext | MUD argued Stroebele was legitimately more qualified; Hartley even conceded some cited events, so no legally sufficient showing of pretext | Court held there was sufficient circumstantial and comparative evidence for a reasonable jury to find pretext and affirmed denial of directed verdict and new trial |
| Use of McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework | Plaintiff relied on prima facie showing, employer’s articulated reasons, then rebuttal by showing those reasons unworthy of credence | MUD maintained its legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons carried the day | Court applied McDonnell Douglas and related authorities, concluding Hartley met ultimate burden by preponderance through evidence of qualifications, procedural irregularities, and inconsistencies |
| Attorney fees award reasonableness | Hartley sought fees for counsel’s time and explained billing practices; requested award under NFEPA | MUD claimed billing included nonlawyer tasks at attorney rates, duplicative work, and insufficient detail | Court found fee documentation adequate and district court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (plaintiff retains ultimate burden of persuasion despite McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (employer’s explanation may be disbelieved and inference of discrimination permitted)
- Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (employer’s burden is to produce clear, reasonably specific, nondiscriminatory reasons)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) (intentional-discrimination principles and causation in employment decisions)