Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 20
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-333 (2026)

Commission; discriminatory housing practice; determination; charge; contents; service; referral to Attorney General; dismissal of complaint

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1)(a) The commission shall, within one hundred days after the filing of the complaint or after the commencement of further action under section 20-332, determine based on the facts whether reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur unless it is impracticable to do so or unless the commission has approved a conciliation agreement with respect to the complaint. If the commission is unable to make the determination within one hundred days after the filing of the complaint or after the commencement of such further action, the commission shall notify the complainant and respondent in writing of the reasons for not doing so.

(b)(i) If the commission determines that reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur, the commission shall, except as provided in subdivision (iii) of this subdivision, immediately issue a charge on behalf of the aggrieved person, for further proceedings under sections 20-335 to 20-340.

(ii) Such charge shall consist of a short and plain statement of the facts upon which the commission has found reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur, shall be based on the final investigative report, and need not be limited to the facts or grounds alleged in the complaint filed under section 20-326.

(iii) If the commission determines that the matter involves the legality of any state or local zoning or other land-use law or ordinance, the commission shall immediately refer the matter to the Attorney General for appropriate action under section 20-343 instead of issuing such charge.

(c) If the commission determines that no reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory housing practice has occurred or is about to occur, the commission shall promptly dismiss the complaint. The commission shall make public disclosure of each such dismissal.

(d) The commission may not issue a charge under this section regarding an alleged discriminatory housing practice after the filing of a civil action commenced by the aggrieved party under state or federal law seeking relief with respect to that discriminatory housing practice.

(2) After the commission issues a charge under this section, the commission shall cause a copy of the charge, together with information as to how to make an election under section 20-335 and the effect of such an election, to be served:

(a) On each respondent named in the charge, together with a notice of opportunity for a hearing at a time and place specified in the notice, unless such an election is made; and

(b) On each aggrieved person on whose behalf the complaint was filed.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1994–2015 · leading case: Ventura v. State of Nebraska Equal Opportunity Comm'n, 517 N.W.2d 368 (Neb. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ventura v. State of Nebraska Equal Opportunity Comm'n, 517 N.W.2d 368 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 12× “the Commission and the damages it awarded were contrary to law and the evidence, (2) the Commission did not establish a prima facie case of housing discrimination, (3) Ventura’s reasons for not renting the unit to Pina were not pretextual, (4) the Commission erred in awarding…”
State, Neoc Ex Rel. Minter v. Jensen, 609 N.W.2d 362 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 3× “It is not without significance that unlike § 20-340, § 20-333 allows the NEOC, given good cause, to act beyond the statutorily established time period.”
Osborn v. Osborn, 550 N.W.2d 58 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 25-534 (Reissue 1995) where notice statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-333 (Reissue 1991), did not require any particular form of service).”
Gen. Serv. Bureau, Inc. v. Moller, 672 N.W.2d 41 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 25-534 (Reissue 1989) where notice statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-333 (Reissue 1991), did not require any particular form of service).”
Burns v. Burns (Neb. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 25-534 (Reissue 1995) where notice statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-333 (Reissue 1991), did not require any particular form of service).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-333(2) — 1 case
State, Neoc Ex Rel. Minter v. Jensen, 609 N.W.2d 362 (Neb. 2000). “It is not without significance that unlike § 20-340, § 20-333 allows the NEOC, given good cause, to act beyond the statutorily established time period.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-333(2)(a) — 1 case
Ventura v. State of Nebraska Equal Opportunity Comm'n, 517 N.W.2d 368 (Neb. 1994). “the Commission and the damages it awarded were contrary to law and the evidence, (2) the Commission did not establish a prima facie case of housing discrimination, (3) Ventura’s reasons for not renting the unit to Pina were not pretextual, (4) the Commission erred in awarding…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-333(l)(a) — 1 case
State, Neoc Ex Rel. Minter v. Jensen, 609 N.W.2d 362 (Neb. 2000). “It is not without significance that unlike § 20-340, § 20-333 allows the NEOC, given good cause, to act beyond the statutorily established time period.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.