burden-shifting framework in Nebraska

2024HUSKER AUTO GROUP Cite as 318 Neb. 178 has recognized the burden-shifting analysis that originated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. 12 [6,7] Under that analysis, the plaintiff, first, has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. 13 Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection. 14 Third, should the defendant carry the burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance o

2024HUSKER AUTO GROUP Cite as 318 Neb. 178 has recognized the burden-shifting analysis that originated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. 12 [6,7] Under that analysis, the plaintiff, first, has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. 13 Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection. 14 Third, should the defendant carry the burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance o

2024Ed. 2d 668 (1973). 13 Haffke v. Signal 88, 306 Neb. 625 , 947 N.W.2d 103 (2020). 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 O’Brien v. Bellevue Public Schools, 289 Neb. 637 , 856 N.W.2d 731 (2014). 17 Knapp, supra note 11 (applying analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp., supra note 12 , to discrimination on basis of sex, using different elements than in wrongful discharge claim). 18 Baker-Heser v. State, 309 Neb. 979 , 963 N.W.2d 59 (2021). - 188 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports GALLOWAY V.

2024Ed. 2d 668 (1973). 13 Haffke v. Signal 88, 306 Neb. 625 , 947 N.W.2d 103 (2020). 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 O’Brien v. Bellevue Public Schools, 289 Neb. 637 , 856 N.W.2d 731 (2014). 17 Knapp, supra note 11 (applying analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp., supra note 12 , to discrimination on basis of sex, using different elements than in wrongful discharge claim). 18 Baker-Heser v. State, 309 Neb. 979 , 963 N.W.2d 59 (2021). - 188 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports GALLOWAY V.

2024HUSKER AUTO GROUP Cite as 318 Neb. 178 has recognized the burden-shifting analysis that originated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. 12 [6,7] Under that analysis, the plaintiff, first, has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination. 13 Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection. 14 Third, should the defendant carry the burden, the plaintiff must then have an opportunity to prove by a preponderance o

2024Ed. 2d 668 (1973). 13 Haffke v. Signal 88, 306 Neb. 625 , 947 N.W.2d 103 (2020). 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 O’Brien v. Bellevue Public Schools, 289 Neb. 637 , 856 N.W.2d 731 (2014). 17 Knapp, supra note 11 (applying analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp., supra note 12 , to discrimination on basis of sex, using different elements than in wrongful discharge claim). 18 Baker-Heser v. State, 309 Neb. 979 , 963 N.W.2d 59 (2021). - 188 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports GALLOWAY V.

2023The Legislature did not put a burden- shifting framework into the statute, and we cannot read into a statute something that is not there. 39 [18] Our holding does not mean that expert testimony con- cerning a national standard of care is always inadmissible. 40 Expert testimony establishing a national standard of care is admissible if the expert can establish that the national stan- dard of care does not differ in the defendant’s community or a similar community. 41 As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained, “expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national stand

2023The Legislature did not put a burden- shifting framework into the statute, and we cannot read into a statute something that is not there. 39 [18] Our holding does not mean that expert testimony con- cerning a national standard of care is always inadmissible. 40 Expert testimony establishing a national standard of care is admissible if the expert can establish that the national stan- dard of care does not differ in the defendant’s community or a similar community. 41 As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained, “expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national stand

2023The Legislature did not put a burden- shifting framework into the statute, and we cannot read into a statute something that is not there. 39 [18] Our holding does not mean that expert testimony con- cerning a national standard of care is always inadmissible. 40 Expert testimony establishing a national standard of care is admissible if the expert can establish that the national stan- dard of care does not differ in the defendant’s community or a similar community. 41 As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained, “expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national stand

2023The Legislature did not put a burden- shifting framework into the statute, and we cannot read into a statute something that is not there. 39 [18] Our holding does not mean that expert testimony con- cerning a national standard of care is always inadmissible. 40 Expert testimony establishing a national standard of care is admissible if the expert can establish that the national stan- dard of care does not differ in the defendant’s community or a similar community. 41 As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained, “expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national stand

2023STEINKE Cite as 314 Neb. 140 Applying these principles, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the Carsons failed to establish Nau’s familiarity with the standard of care in Grand Island or that Cedar Rapids is similar to Grand Island in terms of avail- able medical facilities, personnel, services, or practices.

2023The Legislature did not put a burden- shifting framework into the statute, and we cannot read into a statute something that is not there. 39 [18] Our holding does not mean that expert testimony con- cerning a national standard of care is always inadmissible. 40 Expert testimony establishing a national standard of care is admissible if the expert can establish that the national stan- dard of care does not differ in the defendant’s community or a similar community. 41 As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained, “expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national stand

2023The Legislature did not put a burden- shifting framework into the statute, and we cannot read into a statute something that is not there. 39 [18] Our holding does not mean that expert testimony con- cerning a national standard of care is always inadmissible. 40 Expert testimony establishing a national standard of care is admissible if the expert can establish that the national stan- dard of care does not differ in the defendant’s community or a similar community. 41 As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained, “expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national stand

2023The Legislature did not put a burden- shifting framework into the statute, and we cannot read into a statute something that is not there. 39 [18] Our holding does not mean that expert testimony con- cerning a national standard of care is always inadmissible. 40 Expert testimony establishing a national standard of care is admissible if the expert can establish that the national stan- dard of care does not differ in the defendant’s community or a similar community. 41 As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained, “expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national stand

2023The Legislature did not put a burden- shifting framework into the statute, and we cannot read into a statute something that is not there. 39 [18] Our holding does not mean that expert testimony con- cerning a national standard of care is always inadmissible. 40 Expert testimony establishing a national standard of care is admissible if the expert can establish that the national stan- dard of care does not differ in the defendant’s community or a similar community. 41 As the Tennessee Supreme Court has explained, “expert medical testimony regarding a broader regional standard or a national stand

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW [1-3] An action for declaratory judgment is sui generis; whether such action is to be treated as one at law or one in equity is to be determined by the nature of the dispute. 4 An action for injunctive relief is equitable in nature. 5 In reviewing an equity action for a declaratory judgment, an appellate court tries factual issues de novo on the record and reaches a conclu- sion independent of the findings of the trial court, subject to the rule that where credible evidence is in conflict on mate- rial issues of fact, the reviewing court may consider and give weight to the f

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW [1-3] An action for declaratory judgment is sui generis; whether such action is to be treated as one at law or one in equity is to be determined by the nature of the dispute. 4 An action for injunctive relief is equitable in nature. 5 In reviewing an equity action for a declaratory judgment, an appellate court tries factual issues de novo on the record and reaches a conclu- sion independent of the findings of the trial court, subject to the rule that where credible evidence is in conflict on mate- rial issues of fact, the reviewing court may consider and give weight to the f

2021REGIME NO. 3 Cite as 309 Neb. 655 discrimination includes a refusal to make “reasonable accom- modations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” 11 The FHA requires accommodation if such accommodation (1) is reasonable and (2) necessary (3) to afford a handicapped person the equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. 12 The movant bears the burden of proving each of these elements by a preponder- ance of the evidence. 13 [5] Guenther has argued that in considering her claim,

2017On appeal, he claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of NMC. [5,6] On a motion for summary judgment, the question is not how a factual issue is to be decided, but whether any real issue of material fact exists.8 Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence admitted at the hearing dis- close that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.9 We note that both parties, as well as the district court, have a

2017On appeal, he claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of NMC. [5,6] On a motion for summary judgment, the question is not how a factual issue is to be decided, but whether any real issue of material fact exists.8 Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence admitted at the hearing dis- close that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.9 We note that both parties, as well as the district court, have a

2017On appeal, he claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of NMC. [5,6] On a motion for summary judgment, the question is not how a factual issue is to be decided, but whether any real issue of material fact exists.8 Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence admitted at the hearing dis- close that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.9 We note that both parties, as well as the district court, have a

2017On appeal, he claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of NMC. [5,6] On a motion for summary judgment, the question is not how a factual issue is to be decided, but whether any real issue of material fact exists.8 Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence admitted at the hearing dis- close that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.9 We note that both parties, as well as the district court, have a

2017On appeal, he claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of NMC. [5,6] On a motion for summary judgment, the question is not how a factual issue is to be decided, but whether any real issue of material fact exists.8 Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence admitted at the hearing dis- close that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.9 We note that both parties, as well as the district court, have a

2017On appeal, he claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of NMC. [5,6] On a motion for summary judgment, the question is not how a factual issue is to be decided, but whether any real issue of material fact exists.8 Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence admitted at the hearing dis- close that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.9 We note that both parties, as well as the district court, have a

2016Comm., 217 Neb. 289 , 348 N.W.2d 846 (1984). [5,6] In a housing discrimination case, a court evaluates the evidence under the three-part burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S. Ct. 1817 , 36 L.

2016Comm., 217 Neb. 289 , 348 N.W.2d 846 (1984). [5,6] In a housing discrimination case, a court evaluates the evidence under the three-part burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S. Ct. 1817 , 36 L.

2015Finally, Arens contends that the emotional lability he displayed in meetings with Wisbey was precisely the permanent impairment that was caused by his brain injury, not insubordination. [16] Apart from an exception for summary judgments,35 in a discrimination action brought under the Act, a court evaluates the evidence under the three-part burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp.36 Under that framework, (1) the plaintiff has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) if the plaintiff proves a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate s

2015Finally, Arens contends that the emotional lability he displayed in meetings with Wisbey was precisely the permanent impairment that was caused by his brain injury, not insubordination. [16] Apart from an exception for summary judgments,35 in a discrimination action brought under the Act, a court evaluates the evidence under the three-part burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp.36 Under that framework, (1) the plaintiff has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) if the plaintiff proves a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate s

2015Cite as 291 Neb. 834 transfer of Arens to a position that placed him in indefi- nite laid-off status after he failed a fit-for-duty examination and (2) Nebco’s December 21 discharge of Arens for failing to comply with psychological counseling.

2015Finally, Arens contends that the emotional lability he displayed in meetings with Wisbey was precisely the permanent impairment that was caused by his brain injury, not insubordination. [16] Apart from an exception for summary judgments,35 in a discrimination action brought under the Act, a court evaluates the evidence under the three-part burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp.36 Under that framework, (1) the plaintiff has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) if the plaintiff proves a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate s

2015Finally, Arens contends that the emotional lability he displayed in meetings with Wisbey was precisely the permanent impairment that was caused by his brain injury, not insubordination. [16] Apart from an exception for summary judgments,35 in a discrimination action brought under the Act, a court evaluates the evidence under the three-part burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp.36 Under that framework, (1) the plaintiff has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) if the plaintiff proves a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate s

2015Finally, Arens contends that the emotional lability he displayed in meetings with Wisbey was precisely the permanent impairment that was caused by his brain injury, not insubordination. [16] Apart from an exception for summary judgments,35 in a discrimination action brought under the Act, a court evaluates the evidence under the three-part burden-shifting framework from McDonnell Douglas Corp.36 Under that framework, (1) the plaintiff has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) if the plaintiff proves a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate s