Arens v. NEBCO, Inc.

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court addressed Lenard Arens’ disability discrimination claims against NEBCO, Inc. under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act. The court analyzed evidentiary exclusions, directed-verdict standards, reasonable accommodations, and the business-necessity standard for requiring an employee to undergo a medical examination. It reversed the judgment for NEBCO and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. The trial court erred in excluding Utley's testimony as irrelevant because the testimony had a rational, probative connection to whether Arens was a qualified individual with a disability, whether NEBCO knew of his impairments, and whether NEBCO had previously considered accommodations for those impairments reasonable.
2. The reports satisfied the foundational requirements for treatment as business records, but the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the exhibits wholesale because they contained inadmissible opinions and diagnoses and Arens did not limit his offer to admissible portions.
3. Excluding Utley's testimony was reversible error because the testimony was not cumulative and was Arens' best evidence of NEBCO's knowledge of his mental impairments and its prior willingness to accommodate them.
4. The trial court properly denied Arens' general motion for directed verdict because reasonable jurors could draw contrary inferences concerning whether NEBCO's stated reasons for transferring and terminating him were pretextual.
5. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1107.02(10), an employer requiring an employee to undergo a medical examination must show that the business necessity is vital to the business, that the employer has a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to doubt the employee's ability to perform essential job functions, and that the examination is no broader than necessary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by excluding Utley's testimony as irrelevant.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Utley's reports as hearsay and by refusing to admit the reports in part.
3. Whether the evidence compelled a directed verdict in Arens' favor on his claim that NEBCO's stated reasons for its employment actions were pretextual.
4. Whether NEBCO's required fit-for-duty examination and psychological counseling were unlawful under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1107.02(10).
5. What standard governs whether an employer has a business necessity for requiring an employee, rather than an applicant, to undergo a medical examination.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded