Oldfield v. Nebraska Machinery Co.
296 Neb. 469
| Neb. | 2017Background
- David Oldfield, a long‑tenured (38 years) at‑will service manager at Nebraska Machinery Company (NMC), was terminated after progressive performance and conduct complaints by supervisors.
- Documented issues included resistance to new policies (flat‑rate pricing), shop cleanliness failures, poor internal communication, incomplete subordinate performance appraisals, and refusal to identify an employee who violated company policy.
- Oldfield admitted many of these performance problems in deposition; he identified one remark by his supervisor (saying someone should be trained to replace him because he might retire) as the sole basis for his age‑discrimination claim.
- Oldfield also alleged he engaged in protected opposition by questioning pay for a September 2012 breakfast meeting and claimed retaliatory discharge under FEPA.
- NMC produced evidence that termination resulted from an accumulation of performance/insubordination issues and replaced Oldfield with two younger employees; he received warning(s) including a written warning about appraisals.
- The district court granted summary judgment for NMC; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, finding no genuine issue that age or protected activity motivated the firing and that the public‑policy claim was duplicative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination violated the Nebraska ADEA (age discrimination) | Oldfield contends a supervisor’s comment about training a replacement to cover his eventual retirement shows age was a factor | NMC asserts legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons: documented performance, insubordination, failure to follow directives | Affirmed for NMC — one isolated retirement comment plus undisputed performance issues insufficient to infer age discrimination |
| Whether termination constituted retaliation under FEPA for opposing unlawful pay practices | Oldfield says he opposed unlawful nonpayment for a breakfast meeting and was fired shortly thereafter | NMC shows employees were paid, Oldfield’s belief was not objectively reasonable, and termination followed longstanding performance concerns | Affirmed for NMC — no unlawful practice, no reasonable belief, and no causal nexus given prior documented issues |
| Whether public‑policy wrongful discharge claim lies | Oldfield claims discharge violated Nebraska public policy against unjustified firing of tenured employees | NMC argues claim duplicates statutory ADEA/FEPA claims and lacks a separate clear public‑policy mandate | Affirmed for NMC — public‑policy claim duplicative and no clear mandate breached |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate under burden‑shifting framework | Oldfield argues disputed inferences and pretext exist to defeat summary judgment | NMC contends evidence shows legitimate reasons and no sufficient evidence of pretext or discriminatory/retaliatory animus | Affirmed for NMC — no genuine issue of material fact that NMC’s stated reasons were pretextual; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (procedural burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff retains ultimate burden to prove discrimination)
- Coffey v. Planet Group, 287 Neb. 834 (discussion of public‑policy exception and at‑will employment)
- Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (use of McDonnell Douglas framework in Nebraska employment cases)
- Mathews v. Trilogy Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1160 (one isolated retirement/retirement‑related remark is insufficient to show age discrimination)