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

Background

David A. Oldfield, a long‑tenured (38 years) at‑will heavy equipment service manager at Nebraska Machinery Company (NMC), was terminated in September 2012.
NMC cited accumulated performance and conduct problems: resistance to new policies (flat‑rate pricing), poor shop cleanliness, missed monthly meetings, poor internal communication, incomplete subordinate performance appraisals, failure to train staff, and refusal to identify an employee who violated policy.
Oldfield admitted many of these deficiencies in deposition but asserted (1) an age discrimination claim based on a single pretermination comment that he would ‘‘want to retire’’ someday, (2) a FEPA retaliation/whistleblower claim arising from his report/question about pay for a September breakfast meeting, and (3) a public‑policy wrongful discharge claim duplicative of the statutory claims.
NMC moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it, finding no genuine issue that NMC’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual or that retaliation/public policy claims had merit.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo and affirmed summary judgment for NMC, concluding no reasonable juror could infer age discrimination, FEPA retaliation, or a public‑policy violation from the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether age was a determining factor in termination (ADEA)	Monski’s comment about training a replacement shows age bias; Oldfield contends that comment indicates discriminatory motive	Termination resulted from documented, cumulative performance and insubordination issues; single retirement comment insufficient to show pretext	Court held age claim fails — one isolated remark plus undisputed performance problems do not permit a reasonable inference of age discrimination
Whether termination was retaliatory under FEPA for opposing unlawful pay practices	Oldfield says he raised a Fair Labor Standards Act issue about paying employees for a breakfast meeting and was fired shortly thereafter	NMC shows employees were paid; Oldfield received management guidance that the meeting could be recorded as training; preexisting pattern of discipline preceded the meeting	Court held retaliation claim fails — Oldfield had no reasonable good‑faith belief of unlawful practice and temporal proximity plus prior performance issues do not establish causation
Whether employer deviated from its own policies (evidence of pretext)	Oldfield argues NMC failed to document all warnings and treated him disparately	NMC points to handbook allowing at‑will termination and no requirement to document every warning; replacements were not shown to be similarly situated with performance issues	Court held no policy deviation shown sufficient to infer pretext
Whether public‑policy wrongful discharge claim survives	Oldfield frames claim as wrongful firing for ‘‘unjustifiable reasons’’ tied to age/retaliation	NMC contends public‑policy claim duplicates statutory claims and lacks independent merit	Court held public‑policy claim duplicative and meritless given rejection of ADEA and FEPA claims

Key Cases Cited

Coffey v. Planet Group, 287 Neb. 834 (recognizing limits of at‑will doctrine and public‑policy exception)
Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (discussing burden‑shifting and McDonnell Douglas framework)
Melick v. Schmidt, 251 Neb. 372 (summary judgment standards in employment cases)
Billingsley v. BFM Liquor Mgmt., 264 Neb. 56 (defining ultimate issue in age discrimination cases)
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff retains ultimate burden of persuasion in discrimination cases)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Mathews v. Trilogy Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1160 (one isolated remark insufficient to show age discrimination)
Wolfe v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 266 Neb. 53 (FEPA protection requires reasonable, good‑faith belief that act was unlawful)