860 N.W.2d 137
Neb.2015Background
- Firefighters sued City of Omaha under the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act for 2008–2009 wages/benefits determined by CIR orders.
- CIR issued final wage orders in 2008 and 2009; the City allegedly misinterpreted them and underpaid certain wages.
- Firefighters pursued declaratory judgments in 2009–2012 to resolve rights under CIR orders and §23-148.
- Wage claim filings proceeded after the declaratory judgments; district court later ruled the claims were not ripe.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City, holding no “agreed” wages existed until the declaratory actions were resolved.
- This Court reversal remanded to enter judgment for firefighters for at least $378,929.55 as the appellate attorney-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wages were “agreed to” under the Act when CIR final orders issued | Firefighters—agreement existed in CIR orders and §23-148 | City—agreement not until declaratory judgments resolved | Yes; wages were agreed on the final CIR order |
| Whether the firefighters are entitled to attorney fees under § 48-1231(1) | Two awards possible (trial and appeal) if merit shown | Brockley disallows two awards; only one applicable here | Appellate award applicable; no trial-fee due; one award of 25%+ of unpaid wages |
| Whether pension contributions are included in the fee base | Include pension-fund contributions as wages | Exclude pension contributions as non-wage benefits | Include pension contributions; they are part of wages under the Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. PayFlex Systems USA, 285 Neb. 808 (Neb. 2013) (illustrates interpreting wage agreements despite disputes)
- Brockley v. Lozier Corp., 241 Neb. 449 (Neb. 1992) (two attorney-fee awards controversy (disapproved by this decision))
- Freeman v. Central States Health & Life Co., 2 Neb. App. 803 (Neb. App. 1994) (discusses ‘previously agreed to’ under wage act)
- Hawkins v. City of Omaha, 261 Neb. 943 (Neb. 2001) (city-pay-ordinances as agreements to pay)
- Kerford Limestone Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 287 Neb. 653 (Neb. 2014) (statutory interpretation relied upon)
- SourceGas Distrib. v. City of Hastings, 287 Neb. 595 (Neb. 2014) (agency/municipality wage-claims interpretation)
- Roseland v. Strategic Staffing Mgmt., 272 Neb. 434 (Neb. 2006) (fee-structure guidance under wage act)
- Sindelar v. Canada Transport, Inc., 246 Neb. 559 (Neb. 1994) (recognizes fringe-benefits inclusion in wages)
- Kinney v. H.P. Smith Ford, 266 Neb. 591 (Neb. 2003) (wage-definition scope under Act)
- Moore v. Eggers Consulting Co., 252 Neb. 396 (Neb. 1997) (fee-structure context under Act (superseded))