 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Billingsley v. BFM Liquor Management6/14/2002
nt interest. In an order filed December 14, the district court ruled on these claims as follows:
Based upon the over 4-year gap between Richard Billingsley's termination of employment, and his trial, and based upon the jury's computation of his wage claim and his age claim . . . the Court is persuaded that the verdicts which the jury reached were inclusive not only of Richard Billingsley's legal claims, but those matters which are included within Billingsley's pending request for equitable relief, save the claim for an attorney's fee and post-judgment interest running from the date of the jury's award.
The district court thus denied Billingsley equitable relief of either front pay or reinstatement and set a hearing date on Billingsley's request for attorney fees and postjudgment interest.
On January 5, 2001, the district court held a separate hearing on Billingsley's request for attorney fees and postjudgment interest. In an order filed January 10, the district court awarded Billingsley attorney fees and postjudgment interest. Judgment was entered.
Defendants appealed the district court's judgment. Billingsley filed a cross-appeal.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Defendants assign several errors, three of which we discuss. Defendants claim that the district court erred in (1) not finding that Billingsley's claims as set forth in the petition were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to the dismissal of the first three causes of action in Billingsley's third amended petition, (2) concluding that although BCI had fewer than 25 employees, BFM and BCI were to be treated as a common enterprise and thus employers within ยง 48-1002, and (3) failing to find that Billingsley "failed to sustain his burden of proof because of Defendants' articulation of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for [Billingsley's] termination from employment so that no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict for [Billingsley]."
Billingsley assigns two errors on cross-appeal, one of which we discuss. Billingsley claims, restated, that the district court erred in failing to award equitable relief.
IV. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
[1-3] The applicability of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel is a question of law. Henriksen v. Gleason, 263 Neb. 840, 643 N.W.2d 652 (2002); McCarson v. McCarson, 263 Neb. 534, 641 N.W.2d 62 (2002). Similarly, statutory interpretation presents a question of law. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Comrs. v. Civil Serv. Comm., 263 Neb. 544, 641 N.W.2d 55 (2002). On questions of law, an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the court below. Ruzicka v. Ruzicka, 262 Neb. 824, 635 N.W.2d 528 (2001).
[4,5] A trial court should direct a verdict as a matter of law only when the facts are conceded, undisputed, or such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion therefrom. Nebraska Nutrients v. Shepherd, 261 Neb. 723, 626 N.W.2d 472 (2001). An appellate court's review of the trial court's exercise of equity jurisdiction is de novo on the record, with independent conclusions of fact and law. Hornig v. Martel Lift Systems, 258 Neb. 764, 606 N.W.2d 764 (2000).
V. ANALYSIS
1. Appeal
(a) Claims Not Barred by Doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
Defendants argue that the district court erred in not determining that Billingsley's claims under the age discrimination act and under the wage payment act were barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. There is no merit to this assignment of error.
Defendants specifically assert that on
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nebraska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|