48-1107.01. Unlawful employment practice for covered entity.

272 words·~1 min read·/ne/chapter-48/48-1107-01

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a covered entity to:

(1)Discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment; or

(2)Discriminate against an individual who is pregnant, who has given birth, or who has a related medical condition in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

Apart from an exception for summary judgments, in a discrimination action brought under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act, 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. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). 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 some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action; and

(3)if the employer articulates a nondiscriminatory reason for its action, the employee maintains the burden of proving that the stated reason was pretextual. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

The threshold fact of consequence in a disability discrimination action is whether the plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability—i.e., one who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).