Age Discrimination in Nebraska

Discrimination in employment on the basis of age is prohibited in Nebraska pursuant to the Nebraska Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  Covered entities that are subject to the Nebraska Age Discrimination in Employment Act include most private and non-profit employers with 20 or more employees, state and local government subdivisions of any size, employment agencies and labor organizations.

Nebraska employers cannot discriminate against employees based on the employee's age in the area of hiring and promotion (e.g., classification, recruitment, selection); compensation (pay and benefits); discipline (including termination); and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment (e.g., training and development, relationships and associations, freedom from workplace harassment).

The Age law also contains provisions barring retaliation. Anyone who has opposed any practice made unlawful by the statutes or who has participated in any manner in any proceeding to enforce the statutes is protected. 

There is a filing deadline. From the date of any alleged harm, the time limit for a Age charge is 300 days.  Federal filing deadlines may be different. However, if you believe you have been discriminated against, do not wait too long. 

Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission ("NEOC") has information about how to report violations.

In Trickey v. Kaman, the Eighth Circuit affirmed an award from a Missouri jury of $160,000  for  the age-discrimination  claim;  $100,000  for  the retaliation claim; and $500,000 in punitive damages. The district court awarded the employee's attorney fees.  

On appeal, Kaman argued that the district court erred in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury because the employee (Tricky) failed to present clear and convincing evidence of outrageous conduct. It also asserted that the punitive-damages award violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And, it maintained that the district court erred in denying its motion for new trial on Trickey's discrimination and retaliation claims because the court (1) improperly admitted hearsay testimony from Trickey's wife on a central issue in the case and (2) failed to weigh the evidence or make credibility findings in evaluating Kaman's motion for new trial.


The Eighth Circuit noted that "Juries  have considerable flexibility  in determining  the  level  of punitive damages."  Ondrisek v. Hoffman, 698 F.3d 1020, 1028 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing BMW of N.  Am.,  Inc.  v.  Gore,  517  U.S.  559,  568  (1996)).  Under  the  Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, "grossly excessive civil punishment" is prohibited. Id. (quotation and citation omitted). We review de novo "the constitutionality of punitive damages." Id.  "Similar to compensatory damages, punitive damages are grossly excessive if they 'shock the  conscience of this court or . . . demonstrate passion  or prejudice  on the  part  of the  trier  of fact.'" Id. (alteration  in original) (quoting Stogsdill  v.  Healthmark Partners,  L.L.C.,  377  F.3d  827,  832  (8th Cir.
2004)).

The Eighth Circuit considered the following factors in analyzing "whether a punitive award shocks the conscience or demonstrates prejudice":

(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct;
(2)  the disparity between  actual  or potential  harm suffered and  the punitive damages award (often stated as a ratio between the amount of the compensatory damages award and the punitive damages award); and
(3) the difference between the punitive damages award and the civil penalties authorized in comparable cases.

These factors collectively serve as "guideposts. . . to ensure proper notice of the penalty associated with [the defendant's] conduct." Id. "Perhaps the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct." Gore, 517 U.S. at 575.  The Eighth Circuit considered five factors in evaluating the degree of reprehensibility: whether . . . the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others;  the  target of the  conduct  had  financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or
deceit, or mere accident. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 419 (2003).


If you have questions about whether your employer had discriminated against you based on your age, contact Madathil Law Office for a free consultation.

Madathil Law Office, LLC
Omaha Employment and Business Law

1625 Farnam Street #830

Omaha, NE 68102

angela@madathil-law.com

http://www.madathil-law.com/

T: 402.577.0686

F: 402.932.9551

Image from here.