Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Group
293 Neb. 890
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Pierce worked for Landmark Management Group (Landmark) and Cornhusker Road LLC (d/b/a Dino’s Storage), both controlled by David Paladino; Landmark had 38 employees and Dino’s Storage had 17.
- Pierce took medical leave for treatment of a blood disorder; after treatment she attempted to return to work and there was a disputed meeting where Pierce contends she was told she was fired while defendants contend they offered alternative positions which she declined.
- Pierce sued under the FMLA and the ADAAA; she moved for partial summary judgment on whether the entities were an "integrated employer" for FMLA numerosity, and the district court granted that motion.
- At trial a jury found for Pierce on both FMLA and ADAAA claims; the court awarded backpay, liquidated damages under the FMLA, punitive damages on the ADAAA claim, and attorney fees to Pierce.
- Employers appealed, raising multiple evidentiary, instruction, sufficiency, damages, and fee challenges; several assignments were deemed unpreserved or inadequately presented on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pierce) | Defendant's Argument (Employers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Landmark and Dino’s Storage are a single (integrated) employer for FMLA numerosity | Entities are integrated based on common ownership/management, shared office/payroll/bookkeeping/staff, and Pierce working for both | Entities are separate with distinct bookkeeping, employees, and policies; summary judgment improper | Court: Granted partial summary judgment for Pierce—integration shown as a matter of law under the four-factor test |
| Admissibility of evidence of Pierce’s receipt of unemployment benefits | Exclude such evidence (movant argued collateral source and Rule 403) | Employers wanted to introduce it to offset backpay | Court: Exclusion of evidence to jury affirmed; but held employers could have sought posttrial offset under Nebraska precedent; issue not preserved as to offset |
| Admissibility of evidence that Pierce failed to report nanny income on taxes | Exclude; not probative and unfairly prejudicial | Admit to impeach truthfulness under Neb. Evid. R. 608(2) | Court: Exclusion affirmed—sole admission that income was unreported, without tax returns or other proof, is not probative of truthfulness |
| Admissibility of unsigned, undated handwritten note re: job offers | Exclude as unreliable hearsay not qualifying as a business record | Admit as evidence that offers were made | Court: Exclusion affirmed—note lacked indicia of trustworthiness and was not a proper business record |
Key Cases Cited
- Durkan v. Vaughan, 259 Neb. 288 (discusses employer integration and summary judgment principles)
- DMK Biodiesel v. McCoy, 290 Neb. 286 (standards for affirming summary judgment)
- Airport Inn v. Nebraska Equal Opp. Comm., 217 Neb. 852 (unemployment benefits not a collateral source; deduction from backpay)
- IBP, Inc. v. Sands, 252 Neb. 573 (reiterating deduction of unemployment benefits from backpay awards)
- Popoalii v. Correctional Medical Services, 512 F.3d 488 (Eighth Circuit: affidavit cannot create genuine issue when it contradicts prior testimony)