Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a judgment in favor of Signal 88, LLC, arising from Nathan Haffke’s claims of retaliation under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act and defamation. The court held that the jury instructions, read as a whole, correctly stated the law regarding protected activity and the employer’s business judgment, and it upheld the directed verdict on defamation based on Haffke’s failure to plead or prove special damages.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the retaliation jury instructions correctly stated that protected activity may consist of opposing or refusing to carry out conduct the employee reasonably and in good faith believed unlawful, even if the conduct was not actually unlawful.
- Whether the district court properly instructed the jury on the employer's business judgment in an employment discrimination and retaliation case.
- Whether the district court properly applied Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 and directed a verdict on the defamation claim based on Haffke's failure to plead or prove special damages.
- Whether Haffke preserved his argument that Signal 88's amended franchise disclosure document failed to comply with § 25-840.01.
Holdings
- The retaliation instructions, read together, correctly stated that protected activity may include opposing or refusing to carry out conduct that the employee reasonably and in good faith believes is unlawful, even when the conduct is not actually unlawful.
- A business-judgment instruction is proper in an employment discrimination case when warranted by the evidence, so long as it does not prevent the jury from finding that the employer's stated reasons were pretextual or intentionally discriminatory.
- The district court properly considered Signal 88's compliance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01 because the pleadings placed the statute's application and the issuance of a correction directly at issue and provided Haffke fair notice.
- The court declined to consider Haffke's argument that Signal 88's amended statement failed to comply with § 25-840.01 because he raised and argued that issue only in his reply brief and did not assign it in his initial brief.
Key quotations
“employment discrimination laws have not vested in the Nebraska courts the authority to sit as super personnel departments reviewing the wisdom or fairness of the business judgments made by employers, except to the extent that those judgments involve intentional discrimination.” (639)
“Instruction No. 12 explains that the jury cannot find retaliation simply because it disagrees with Signal 88’s decision or finds it harsh or unreasonable.” (642)
Factual background
Signal 88, a security-service franchisor, employed Nathan Haffke as vice president of franchise development. Haffke claimed he was terminated and later denied an independent-contractor arrangement because he objected to allegedly unlawful franchise-related transactions and refused to participate in them; Signal 88 attributed the termination to poor performance. Signal 88 later issued franchise disclosure documents stating that Haffke had been terminated for poor performance, and Haffke alleged that statement was defamatory. The jury rejected Haffke's retaliation claim, and the district court directed a verdict against his defamation claim.
Procedural history
Haffke sued Signal 88 for retaliation under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act and defamation based on statements in a franchise disclosure document. The district court granted Signal 88 a directed verdict on the defamation claim after determining that Haffke failed to plead or prove special damages under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-840.01. The retaliation claim was submitted to a jury, which found that Haffke failed to prove retaliation. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.