Oldfield v. Nebraska Machinery Co.
296 Neb. 469
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Oldfield, a long‑tenured (38 years) at‑will heavy equipment service manager at Nebraska Machinery Co. (NMC), was terminated after documented performance and conduct concerns.
- Performance concerns included resistance to new policies (flat‑rate pricing), shop cleanliness, missed or late subordinate performance appraisals, inadequate internal communication, and failure to train/mentor staff.
- A disputed incident: Oldfield approved pay for employees after a September 2012 breakfast meeting; he later refused to identify an employee who allegedly violated company policy by discussing the meeting with a customer.
- Supervisor Monski made one remark about succession/retirement; Oldfield identified that single remark as the basis for his age‑discrimination claim.
- NMC issued a termination memorandum citing insubordination and ongoing performance failures; Oldfield sued under Nebraska ADEA, FEPA retaliation, and a public‑policy wrongful discharge theory.
- The district court granted summary judgment for NMC; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the record lacked sufficient evidence of age discrimination, unlawful‑practice reporting, or a public‑policy violation to survive summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) ADEA age discrimination — was age a determining factor? | Monski’s retirement comment shows age animus/pretext. | Termination rested on longstanding, documented performance and insubordination issues; single comment insufficient. | Affirmed for NMC: one isolated remark plus undisputed performance problems cannot sustain ADEA claim. |
| 2) FEPA retaliation for opposing unlawful practice — did Oldfield reasonably oppose/pay reporting? | Oldfield contends he opposed nonpayment for employees (FLSA violation) and was fired in retaliation. | Employees were paid; Oldfield’s belief was unreasonable and termination was for preexisting performance issues and recent insubordination. | Affirmed for NMC: no unlawful practice, no reasonable belief, and no causal nexus. |
| 3) Public‑policy wrongful discharge — did termination contravene a clear public policy? | Termination for reporting alleged unlawful wage practice and age discrimination violated public policy. | Claim duplicates statutory claims; no clear mandate of public policy was violated. | Affirmed for NMC: public‑policy claim duplicative and unsupported. |
| 4) Summary judgment standard — did court fail to give Oldfield favorable inferences? | Evidence viewed favorably shows disputed facts and timing supporting claims. | Even under favorable view, evidence insufficient for a reasonable jury to infer discrimination or retaliation. | Affirmed: no genuine issue of material fact for a jury; NMC entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffey v. Planet Group, 287 Neb. 834 (Neb. 2014) (describing limits of public‑policy exception to at‑will employment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (plaintiff retains ultimate burden of persuasion on discrimination)
- Melick v. Schmidt, 251 Neb. 372 (Neb. 1997) (summary judgment principles in employment cases)
- Mathews v. Trilogy Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir. 1998) (single stray remark insufficient to show age discrimination)
- Wolfe v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 266 Neb. 53 (Neb. 2003) (FEPA protection requires a reasonable, good‑faith belief that the employer’s act was unlawful)