*1 assault, when evidence showed Ander- son, length was an arm’s of Van Aelstyn, who within at not react until and others near hand could after was knocked to floor. action of plaintiff correct and is District Court was affirmed.
Affirmed. Schools, Hall, appellant, Public v. Jerald Omaha
appellee. May 1982. No. Filed Baird, Holm, P. Heil of Alex Clarke and John M. Hamann, McEachen, appellant. & for Pedersen j. Vinardi, Welch, Gross, Timothy Augustyn P.C., appellee. & for Day, Kauffman C.J., Boslaugh, McCown, Krivosha, before Heard JJ. Clinton, White, Hastings, J. White, from a decree appeal is an
This af- Douglas County, Opportunity Equal order Nebraska firmed an finding appellee, Hall, Commission Jerald against by practices ap- hiring pellant, Omaha Public Schools. assignments argued,
Several of error are but we only one, i.e., discuss whether at the shall time of taken, the Nebraska Com- action mission jurisdiction had to hear discrimination com- by employees plaints of the the State agree appellant Nebraska. We with that the com- jurisdiction accordingly, and, mission did the order reverse of the District and dismiss The Nebraska Fair Practice Act was (1965 adopted by Legislature the 1965 Laws, Neb. Ch. 782) p. and is found at Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-1101 (Cum. 1965). seq. Supp. declaring policy et of the act ployers After 48-1102(2)
in § § defined the em- “(2) Employer to the act: shall person engaged industry mean a twenty-five in an who has employees
or working day more for each twenty in each of or more calendar weeks the cur- preceding year, any agent or rent calendar person, (a) a such but such term does not include corporation wholly States, by a United owned government States, tribe, United an Indian state subdivision . .. thereof (Emphasis supplied.) (1967 Legislature
The 306, 1, Ch. § 48-1102(2) p. by striking § amended the words any “or the subdivision thereof.” Legislature 48-1102(2) later § further amended “Employer person engaged read: to in an shall mean a industry employees who has fifteen more working day twenty in each each or more calen- preceding dar weeks the current or calendar any year, agent person, a such and includes governmental agencies, the State regardless subdivisions, the number (1979 employees (Emphasis supplied.) . . . 1.) 67, § Appellant, teacher, to a a is confined wheelchair. employment appellee application for with He made hired. In district in 1975 and was not 1975 a school complaint the commission. Both was filed with found commission and school District Court that against appellant be- district disability. opportunity of his Had we had cause issue, have been reach agree we would inclined to findings of the commission and the Jerald Hall question District Court. No exists person per- the act as a disabled was a son, (Reis- provided by Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1104 1974), relief, been entitled to sue and would have jurisdiction provided existed legislation. prior to the effective date the 1967 amendment concedes that does subject political *3 to the not jurisdiction its terms subdivisions points He, however, of the commission. legislative history of 1967 L.B. out pur- 357, “The as introduced Senator Danner: provide pose is to the State of Ne- bill any agency braska, State, of subject to be the Fair subdivision of the State shall Chapter Act, Practice Statute Supplement, 48, 11, Article Revised Statutes political its subdivisions The State Nebraska and inadvertently left . . . were out hearing points on to the 1967 Neb. also purposes 357, in the intro- explicit. quite were clear and ducer extremely in meri- is unfortunate this otherwise It compose care taken to case that same torious the statement purpose was not used draft an accomplishing capable of the intended amendment purpose. When subdivisions 48-1102(2), from exclusion within removed were automatically they not included an em- were ployer subject to the To be act.
§48-1102(2), they first meet the definition of must §48-1102(1), they “person,” unless as defined specifically were included within the definition of “employer.” (Cum. Supp. language §of 48-1102 is ex-
The tremely clear. The state and “employer” in the
were not included definition of “person” and therefore are not to the act.
In the construction a statute which is clear and unambiguous, missing supply cannot lan- courts guage. power It is not within our to read into a stat- meaning language ute a warrant. which the clear does not Ragland Dist.,
See v. Norris P.P. (1981).
492, 304
N.W.2d
having
Commission,
exer
powers
specifically granted by
cised
not
statute,
powers
acted
excess of those
and its action is
Transport
therefore
void
no effect.
See
City
Workers
v.
286
America
Transit Auth.
(1979).
Omaha,
26,
205 Neb.
Nor
parties
granted
juris
could the
have
by acquiescence
by participa
diction
consent,
procedures.
tion in the
Nebraska P.P. Dist. v. Hueb
(1979).
ner,
202 Neb.
I we since do reach the prefer speculate cause, I merits not to as to those how issues would resolved had we *4 done so.
Boslaugh join JJ., in this concur- Hastings, rence.