Timberlake v. Douglas County
291 Neb. 387
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Timberlake was a Douglas County Corrections Officer injured while aiding a supervisor having a seizure; she sought IOD benefits under the CBA and attorney fees under the Wage Act.
- The CBA defines high-risk duty to include responding to a Code and interaction with an inmate during violence; Timberlake was injured after calling a code and protecting her supervisor.
- The trial court found the CBA unambiguous, awarding IOD benefits for Timberlake as injured while performing a high-risk duty (responding to an emergency code).
- Foxall, the county director, denied IOD benefits, asserting Timberlake’s injury did not occur while responding to a Code or interacting with a violent inmate.
- Timberlake was ultimately awarded unpaid IOD benefits and attorney fees; the county appealed arguing the clause was conjunctive/ exclusive and that IOD benefits were not wages under the Wage Act.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the article 25 list nonexclusive and Timberlake injured while performing a high-risk duty, and that IOD benefits are wages under the Wage Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is article 25 a nonexclusive list of high-risk duties? | Timberlake argues include means nonexclusive; code context favors nonexclusive. | Douglas County argues list is conjunctive and exclusive for eligibility. | Nonexclusive list; Timberlake qualifies. |
| Did Timberlake’s injury occur while performing a high-risk duty? | Injury linked to responding to a medical emergency; code-related duty. | Injury occurred after code green; not clearly a listed duty. | Injury occurred while performing a high-risk duty; within article 25 scope. |
| Are IOD benefits wages under the Wage Act, and are attorney fees authorized? | IOD is a fringe benefit; must be paid as wages with fees. | IOD benefits are not wages under the Wage Act. | IOD benefits are wages; attorney fees awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. County of Douglas, 213 Neb. 355 (Neb. 1983) (high-risk duty requires greater hazard than routine duties; examples given)
- Sindelar v. Canada Transport, Inc., 246 Neb. 559 (Neb. 1994) (fringe benefits may be wages; nonexclusive list contexts)
- Spracklin v. Spracklin, 21 Neb. App. 271 (Neb. App. 2013) (word include indicates nonexclusive list in contracts/statutes)
- Jacobson v. Shresta, 288 Neb. 615 (Neb. 2014) (contract interpretation and list scope guidance)
- Village of Memphis v. Frahm, 287 Neb. 427 (Neb. 2014) (interpretation of lists and include language)
- O’Gara Coal Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 114 Neb. 584 (Neb. 1926) (early contract/list interpretation authority)