48-1221. Prohibited acts.

322 words·~1 min read·/ne/chapter-48/48-1221

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

(1)No employer shall discriminate between employees in the same establishment on the basis of sex, by paying wages to any employee in such establishment at a wage rate less than the rate at which the employer pays any employee of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs which require equal skill, effort and responsibility under similar working conditions. Wage differentials are not within this prohibition where such payments are made pursuant to:

(a)An established seniority system;

(b)a merit increase system; or

(c)a system which measures earning by quantity or quality of production or any factor other than sex.

(2)An employer who is paying a wage differential in violation of the provisions of sections 48-1219 to 48-1227 shall not, in order to comply with it, reduce the wage rates of any employee.

(3)No person shall cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against any employee in violation of the provisions of sections 48-1219 to 48-1227 .

(4)No employer may discharge or discriminate against any employee by reason of any action taken by such employee to invoke or assist in any manner the enforcement of the provisions of sections 48-1219 to 48-1227 .

When bringing a claim of wage discrimination based on sex under subsection

(1)of this section, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that

(1)the plaintiff was paid less than a person of the opposite sex employed in the same establishment;

(2)for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility;

(3)which were performed under similar working conditions. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of wage discrimination based on sex, the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove one of the affirmative defenses set forth in subsection

(1)of this section. Knapp v. Ruser, 297 Neb. 639, 901 N.W.2d 31 (2017).