Oldfield v. Nebraska Machinery Co., 296 Neb. 469

David Oldfield, a long‑tenured at‑will heavy equipment service manager, was terminated by Nebraska Machinery Company (NMC) after alleged ongoing performance and insubordination issues.
Documented and admitted problems included resistance to new policies (flat‑rate pricing), poor shop cleanliness, missed or late internal communications, incomplete subordinate performance appraisals, and refusal to identify an employee who violated company policy.
Oldfield alleged three claims: age discrimination under Nebraska ADEA, retaliation under the Nebraska FEPA (for reporting alleged unpaid wages related to a breakfast meeting), and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
NMC moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it, finding no genuine issue of material fact to infer age discrimination, retaliation, or a public‑policy violation.
On appeal, Oldfield relied primarily on a single comment by his supervisor about planning for his eventual retirement and temporal proximity to assert pretext; the court reviewed summary judgment de novo and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Age discrimination (ADEA)	Monski’s retirement comment and replacement by younger employees show age was a factor	Termination was for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (performance, insubordination, failure to follow directives)	Affirmed: single retirement comment + record insufficient to show age was determining factor or pretext
Retaliation (FEPA)	Oldfield reported alleged FLSA violation (unpaid time for breakfast meeting) and was fired soon after	No unlawful practice occurred; employees were paid; termination was for preexisting performance issues and recent insubordination	Affirmed: no reasonable belief of unlawful practice and no causal nexus to termination
Public‑policy wrongful discharge	Firing contravened public policy because it was unjustifiable/retaliatory	Claim duplicates statutory ADEA/FEPA claims and lacks independent basis	Affirmed: duplicative and meritless where statutory claims fail
Sufficiency of pretext evidence on summary judgment	Disputed facts and inferences (timing, motive, lack of documentation) create triable issues	Employer produced undisputed evidence of performance problems and policy compliance; handbook permits at‑will termination with minimal documentation	Affirmed: plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence for reasonable juror to infer discrimination/retaliation; he did not

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for proving discriminatory motives)
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (plaintiff retains ultimate burden to prove discrimination)
Coffey v. Planet Group, 287 Neb. 834 (Neb. 2014) (discussion of public‑policy exception and at‑will employment)
Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (Neb. 2016) (application of McDonnell Douglas framework in Nebraska context)
Melick v. Schmidt, 251 Neb. 372 (Neb. 1997) (summary judgment and discrimination principles)