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

Oldfield, a long‑time (38 years) at‑will heavy equipment service manager at Nebraska Machinery Company (NMC), was terminated in 2012.
NMC documented numerous performance and conduct concerns: resistance to policy changes (flat‑rate pricing), shop cleanliness, failure to hold/complete meetings and subordinate performance appraisals, poor internal communication, and refusal to identify an employee who violated company policy.
Monski succeeded Oldfield’s direct supervisor and made one remark about succession/retirement; Oldfield relies on that single comment as the sole evidence of age bias.
Oldfield sued for (1) age discrimination under Nebraska ADEA, (2) retaliation under FEPA (whistleblowing re: a breakfast meeting pay issue), and (3) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
The district court granted summary judgment for NMC; the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to Oldfield and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ADEA — age discrimination	Monski’s comment about training a replacement/retirement shows age was a factor	Termination was for documented, legitimate, nondiscriminatory performance and insubordination reasons	Affirmed — one stray comment and the record cannot support an inference of age discrimination
FEPA — retaliation for opposing unlawful practice	Oldfield reported alleged FLSA violations (employees not paid for a meeting); termination followed ~3 weeks later	Employees were paid; Oldfield could not reasonably believe an unlawful practice occurred; termination stemmed from preexisting performance problems	Affirmed — no reasonable belief of unlawful conduct and no causal link to termination
Public policy wrongful discharge	Termination contravened public policy by firing a tenured employee for unjustifiable reasons	Claim duplicates statutory ADEA/FEPA claims and lacks a separate clear mandate of violated public policy	Affirmed — duplicative and not supported by a clear statutory/regulatory mandate
Summary judgment standard / pretext	Oldfield contends factual disputes and inferences of pretext exist	NMC contends evidence shows legitimate reasons and no genuine issue of material fact supporting pretext	Affirmed — viewing facts favorably to Oldfield, no reasonable juror could infer discrimination or retaliation from the record

Coffey v. Planet Group, 287 Neb. 834 (Neb. 2014) (discussion of at‑will employment and public policy exception)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination proof)
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (plaintiff bears ultimate burden to prove discrimination)
Melick v. Schmidt, 251 Neb. 372 (Neb. 1997) (summary judgment principles and discrimination analysis)
Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (Neb. 2016) (burden of production and ultimate persuasion in employment claims)
Mathews v. Trilogy Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir. 1998) (isolated comments ordinarily insufficient to show age discrimination)
Wolfe v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 266 Neb. 53 (Neb. 2003) (FEPA retaliation requires reasonable, good‑faith belief that employer engaged in unlawful practice)