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

David Oldfield, a 38-year NMC heavy equipment service manager, was an at-will employee terminated in September 2012 after alleged performance and insubordination issues.
Management documented concerns including resistance to new policies (flat-rate pricing), shop cleanliness, missed monthly meetings, poor internal communication, and failure to complete many subordinate performance appraisals.
A written warning in July 2012 for missed appraisals (after multiple extensions) and several emails about billing and shop oversight preceded termination.
A dispute over whether a September 2012 breakfast for employees should be paid and Oldfield’s refusal to identify an employee who violated company policy contributed to tensions; Oldfield admitted the employees were paid.
Oldfield claimed age discrimination (single comment that he should be replaced/taught over because he would retire), FEPA whistleblower retaliation (reporting alleged unpaid wages), and a public-policy wrongful discharge claim. The district court granted summary judgment for NMC; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Age discrimination under Nebraska ADEA	Monski’s comment about training a replacement shows age was a factor	Termination was for accumulated, legitimate nondiscriminatory performance/insubordination reasons	Court: Single retirement comment insufficient; no reasonable inference of age discrimination; summary judgment for NMC
Retaliation under FEPA (opposition to unlawful practice)	Oldfield reported alleged FLSA violation (employees unpaid for breakfast) and was terminated ~3 weeks later	No unlawful practice occurred (employees were paid); managers had longstanding concerns predating the report	Court: No reasonable belief in unlawful practice and no causal nexus; summary judgment for NMC
Public-policy wrongful discharge	Termination contravened public policy protecting tenured employees from unjustified discharge	Claim duplicates ADEA/FEPA claims and lacks independent public-policy mandate	Court: Claim duplicative and meritless; summary judgment for NMC
Summary judgment standard / evidentiary sufficiency	Evidence (comments, timing, replacement by younger employees) raises pretext and triable issues	Records and admissions show pervasive performance issues and legitimate reasons; no pretext shown	Court: Viewing facts for nonmovant, still no genuine issue—NMC entitled to judgment as a matter of law

Coffey v. Planet Group, 287 Neb. 834 (employers may terminate at-will employees; public-policy exception limited)
Melick v. Schmidt, 251 Neb. 372 (summary of public-policy exception principles)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff retains ultimate burden of persuasion despite burden-shifting)
Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (usage of McDonnell Douglas framework in Nebraska employment cases)