 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Billingsley v. BFM Liquor Management6/14/2002
alified for the position, and (4) the person who received the position was outside of the protected group. Humphrey, supra. The ultimate issue is whether age was a determining factor in the employer's decision. Id.
In Humphrey, the plaintiff claimed on appeal that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict in his favor on his claim of age discrimination. We reviewed the record and determined that the evidence was in dispute and presented an issue as to whether the employer had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its decisions or whether those reasons were merely pretextual. We concluded that because of the dispute in the record, the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motion for directed verdict. In Humphrey, we stated:
The evidence was not such that reasonable minds could draw but one conclusion . . . . Because it is the prerogative of the jury, as the trier of fact, to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine the weight and credibility to be given to testimony of witnesses . . . the evidence clearly presented a submissible issue for the jury. The trial court thus properly denied Humphrey's motion for directed verdict . . . . 243 Neb. at 881-82, 503 N.W.2d at 219.
In the instant case, as in Humphrey, there was a conflict in the evidence. Although defendants introduced evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Billingsley's termination, namely, performance issues, Billingsley introduced evidence from which a jury could determine that those reasons were merely pretextual. Billingsley's evidence included testimony that Dahlke stated an employee should be fired because "he's old. He's useless. He looks bad for the corporate image. . . . Get rid of that old man." Additionally, testimony indicated that Dahlke "wanted an entire new face-lift that would allow a younger look to the entire department" and employment decisions were made in accordance with this stated objective.
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). Our review of the record shows that the evidence in this case created an issue for the jury as to whether defendants had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their decision to terminate Billingsley or whether those reasons were merely pretextual. As such, we conclude that the district did not err in denying the defendants' motion for directed verdict and submitting the case to the jury.
2. Billingsley's Cross-Appeal: Equitable Claims
On cross-appeal, Billingsley claims as his first assignment of error that the district court erred in denying him equitable relief on his age discrimination claim. Billingsley sought equitable relief in the form of front pay or reinstatement. We conclude that this assignment of error is without merit.
We noted in Billingsley v. BFM Liquor Mgmt., 259 Neb. 992, 613 N.W.2d 478 (2000), that an age discrimination claimant was entitled to have a jury determine the lawfulness of the employer's conduct and the amount of claimed past damages and, thereafter, to have the district court consider any request for equitable relief. Because in Billingsley, the district court had not yet ruled on Billingsley's request for equitable relief prior to the appeal, we dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. In setting forth this procedure for handling legal and equitable claims in an age discrimination case, we quoted with approval from Gibson v. Mohawk Rubber Co., 695 F.2d 1093 (8th Cir. 1982), in which the U.S. Court o
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.
|
|