(1) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his or her employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because he or she (a) has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act, (b) has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the act, (c) has opposed any practice or refused to carry out any action unlawful under federal law or the laws of this state, or (d) has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed information regarding employee wages, benefits, or other compensation. This subdivision (d) shall not apply to instances in which an employee who has authorized access to the information regarding wages, benefits, or other compensation of other employees as a part of such employee's job functions discloses such information to a person who does not otherwise have authorized access to such information, unless such disclosure is in response to a charge or complaint or in furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or other action, including an investigation conducted by the employer.
(2) Nothing in this subsection or subdivision (1)(d) of this section shall be contrary to applicable state or federal law or:
(a) Create an obligation for any employer or employee to disclose information regarding employee wages, benefits, or other compensation;
(b) Permit an employee, without the written consent of the employer, to disclose proprietary information, trade secret information, or information that is otherwise subject to a legal privilege or protected by law. For purposes of this subdivision, proprietary information does not include information regarding employee wages, benefits, or other compensation;
(c) Permit an employee to disclose information regarding wages, benefits, or other compensation of other employees to a competitor of the employer;
(d) Apply to employers which are exempt from the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act under section 48-1102;
(e) Permit an employee to discuss information regarding employee wages, benefits, or other compensation during working hours, as defined in existing workplace policies, or in violation of specific contractual obligations; or
(f) Permit an employee to disseminate information regarding employee wages, benefits, or other compensation to the general public. For purposes of this subdivision, general public does not include public officials, judicial officers, legislators, trade associations, or other reasonable third parties for the employee's mutual aid or protection.
(3) The changes made to this section by Laws 2019, LB217, shall not be construed so as to impair or affect the obligation of any lawful contract in existence prior to September 1, 2019.
Notes of Decisions
Helvering v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 703 N.W.2d 134 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 18× “§ 20-148 (Reissue 1997) and § 48-1114. Section 20-148 authorizes a private civil cause of action for private acts of discrimination by private employers.”
Baker-Heser v. State, 309 Neb. 979 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 18× “The “practice” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114 (1)(c) (Cum. Supp.”
Khaitov v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 319 Neb. 932 (Neb. 2025).
· cites it 72× “§ 48-1114 (2)(e) (Reissue 2021) is an affirmative defense that an employer must both plead and prove in an action alleging a violation of § 48-1114(1)(d).”
McPherson v. City of Scottsbluff, 303 Neb. 765 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 8× “And because McPherson alleged that the City retaliated against him for expressing disapproval of the actions of his fellow employees, as opposed to his employer, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether he engaged in protected activity pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat.…”
Wolfe v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 662 N.W.2d 599 (Neb. 2003).
· cites it 8× “The parties do not dispute that the alleged unlawful acts which Wolfe opposed — illegal drug use — were those of his fellow employees and not of his employer, BD.”
Riggs v. Cnty. of Banner, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (D. Neb. 2001).
· cites it 8× “Wrongful Discharge (Count VI of Riggs’ Amended Complaint) Riggs also asserts a state-law claim for wrongful discharge, alleging that the county board’s decision to terminate his employment contravened public policy “as expressed in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-1114, and in the common law,…”
Knapp v. Ruser, 297 Neb. 639 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 5× “A plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114 (Reissue 2010) by showing (1) he or she engaged in protected conduct, (2) he or she was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (3) there was a causal connection between the…”
Haffke v. Signal 88, 306 Neb. 625 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 5× “8 Under NFEPA, “It is the policy of [Nebraska] to foster the employment of all employable persons in the state on the basis of merit .”
Galloway v. Husker Auto Grp., 318 Neb. 178 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 6× “The “practice” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114 (1)(c) (Reissue 2021) refers to an unlawful practice of the employer.”
Wanda Walker v. First Care Mgmt. Grp., 27 F.4th 600 (8th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 4× “After the NEOC issued its findings, Walker and Wright filed complaints in state court, asserting: (1) unlawful retaliation after engaging in protected activities, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114 (1)(c);3 (2) unlawful retaliation, in violation of Neb.”
Goolsby v. Anderson, 549 N.W.2d 153 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 4× “" Goolsby's fourth cause of action alleged that Albertson's constructive transfer of Goolsby "constitutes retaliation in violation of Neb. Rev.Stat. § 48-1114." Goolsby's fifth cause of action alleged that the appellees breached the employment contract.”
Bussing v. COR Clearing, LLC, 20 F. Supp. 3d 719 (D. Neb. 2014).
· cites it 10× “; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; breach of contract; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (against Legent only); defamation; fraudulent inducement, misrepresentation, and concealment; negligent misrepresentation; tortious interference with a…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114(03) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114(1) — 5 cases
Helvering v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 703 N.W.2d 134 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005).
“§ 20-148 (Reissue 1997) and § 48-1114. Section 20-148 authorizes a private civil cause of action for private acts of discrimination by private employers.”
Galloway v. Husker Auto Grp., 318 Neb. 178 (Neb. 2024).
“The “practice” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114 (1)(c) (Reissue 2021) refers to an unlawful practice of the employer.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114(1)(a) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114(1)(c) — 3 cases
Baker-Heser v. State, 309 Neb. 979 (Neb. 2021).
“The “practice” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114 (1)(c) (Cum. Supp.”
Galloway v. Husker Auto Grp., 318 Neb. 178 (Neb. 2024).
“The “practice” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114 (1)(c) (Reissue 2021) refers to an unlawful practice of the employer.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114(1)(d) — 2 cases
Khaitov v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 319 Neb. 932 (Neb. 2025).
“§ 48-1114 (2)(e) (Reissue 2021) is an affirmative defense that an employer must both plead and prove in an action alleging a violation of § 48-1114(1)(d).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114(2) — 1 case
Helvering v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 703 N.W.2d 134 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005).
“§ 20-148 (Reissue 1997) and § 48-1114. Section 20-148 authorizes a private civil cause of action for private acts of discrimination by private employers.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114(2)(e) — 1 case
Khaitov v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 319 Neb. 932 (Neb. 2025).
“§ 48-1114 (2)(e) (Reissue 2021) is an affirmative defense that an employer must both plead and prove in an action alleging a violation of § 48-1114(1)(d).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114(3) — 9 cases
Helvering v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 703 N.W.2d 134 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005).
“§ 20-148 (Reissue 1997) and § 48-1114. Section 20-148 authorizes a private civil cause of action for private acts of discrimination by private employers.”
McPherson v. City of Scottsbluff, 303 Neb. 765 (Neb. 2019).
“And because McPherson alleged that the City retaliated against him for expressing disapproval of the actions of his fellow employees, as opposed to his employer, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether he engaged in protected activity pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat.…”
Wolfe v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 662 N.W.2d 599 (Neb. 2003).
“The parties do not dispute that the alleged unlawful acts which Wolfe opposed — illegal drug use — were those of his fellow employees and not of his employer, BD.”
Bussing v. COR Clearing, LLC, 20 F. Supp. 3d 719 (D. Neb. 2014).
“; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; breach of contract; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (against Legent only); defamation; fraudulent inducement, misrepresentation, and concealment; negligent misrepresentation; tortious interference with a…”
Baker-Heser v. State, 309 Neb. 979 (Neb. 2021).
“The “practice” in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114 (1)(c) (Cum. Supp.”
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.