(1) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer:
(a) To refuse to hire, to discharge, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to the employee's terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, otherwise lawful, because of such individual's age, when the reasonable demands of the position do not require such an age distinction; or
(b) To willfully utilize in the hiring or recruitment of individuals for employment otherwise lawful, any employment agency, placement service, training school or center, labor organization, or any other source which so discriminates against individuals because of their age.
(2) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any labor organization to so discriminate against any individual or to limit, segregate, or classify its membership in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive an individual of otherwise lawful employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his or her status as an employee or would affect adversely his or her wages, hours, or employment.
(3) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment or otherwise to discriminate against any individual because of such individual's age or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his or her age.
(4) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, employment agency, or labor organization to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because he or she opposed any unlawful employment practice specified in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or has filed a charge or suit, testified, participated, or assisted in any proceeding under the act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
Trosper v. Bag 'N Save, 734 N.W.2d 704 (Neb. 2007).
Trosper v. Bag 'N Save, 734 N.W.2d 704 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 8× “, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-1004 and 48-1114 (Reissue 2004).”
Stevenson v. Superior Court, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6918 (Cal. 1997).
· cites it 2× “§ 49-2-303 ; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1004 ; Nev. Rev. Stat.”
Bobbette Blake v. MJ Optical, 870 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2017).
“§ 623 (a)(1); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1004 (1)(a). Other than a heightened causation requirement for age-discrimination plaintiffs, courts assess age-based claims in the same way they do sex-based claims.”
Allen v. At & T Tech., Inc., 423 N.W.2d 424 (Neb. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Some of the plaintiffs additionally claim AT&T Technologies, in violation of § 48-1004(3), retaliated against them for filing a discrimination charge with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission.”
Humphrey v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 503 N.W.2d 211 (Neb. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Section 48-1004(a) of the state act provides that it is unlawful for an employer “[t]o refuse to hire, to discharge, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, otherwise lawful, because of such…”
Billingsley v. BFM Liquor Mgmt., Inc., 645 N.W.2d 791 (Neb. 2002).
“” § 48-1004(l)(a). The prohibitions under the age discrimination act are “limited to the employment of individuals who are at least forty years of age but less than seventy years of age.”
Equal Opportunity Comm'n v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 251 N.W.2d 730 (Neb. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Section 48-1004, R. R. S. 1943, makes unlawful several practices: For an employer (a) to refuse to hire, to discharge, or otherwise discriminate because of age; (b) to utilize an employment agency, placement service, labor organization, or school, etc.”
Oldfield v. Nebraska Mach. Co., 296 Neb. 469 (Neb. 2017).
“- 488 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports OLDFIELD v. NEBRASKA MACHINERY CO.”
Williams v. H & H Auto Parts, LLC (D. Neb. 2020).
· cites it 6× “Because age-based discrimination in hiring is unlawful under the NADEA, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1004 (1), opposition to it could form the basis of a retaliation claim, unlike under Title VII.”
Steier v. Crosier Fathers of Hastings, Neb., 492 N.W.2d 870 (Neb. 1992).
“The laws that Steier claimed were breached are a part of the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices [sic] Act (§48-1104) and a part of the Act Prohibiting Unjust Discrimination in Employment Because of Age (§ 48-1004). By affidavit, the Crosier Fathers showed they had less than the…”
Peniska v. Cj Foods Inc. (D. Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1004 (1)(a). The court looks to the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination in assessing whether Plaintiff has pled enough facts to make entitlement to relief plausible.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1004(1) — 1 case
Oldfield v. Nebraska Mach. Co., 296 Neb. 469 (Neb. 2017).
“- 488 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports OLDFIELD v. NEBRASKA MACHINERY CO.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1004(3) — 1 case
Allen v. At & T Tech., Inc., 423 N.W.2d 424 (Neb. 1988).
“Some of the plaintiffs additionally claim AT&T Technologies, in violation of § 48-1004(3), retaliated against them for filing a discrimination charge with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1004(a) — 1 case
Humphrey v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 503 N.W.2d 211 (Neb. 1993).
“Section 48-1004(a) of the state act provides that it is unlawful for an employer “[t]o refuse to hire, to discharge, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, otherwise lawful, because of such…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1004(l)(a) — 2 cases
Billingsley v. BFM Liquor Mgmt., Inc., 645 N.W.2d 791 (Neb. 2002).
“” § 48-1004(l)(a). The prohibitions under the age discrimination act are “limited to the employment of individuals who are at least forty years of age but less than seventy years of age.”
Allen v. At & T Tech., Inc., 423 N.W.2d 424 (Neb. 1988).
“Some of the plaintiffs additionally claim AT&T Technologies, in violation of § 48-1004(3), retaliated against them for filing a discrimination charge with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission.”
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.