View Statute 48-1001

(1) Sections 48-1001 to 48-1010 shall be known and may be cited as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

(2)(a) The Legislature hereby finds that the practice of discriminating in employment against properly qualified persons because of their age is contrary to American principles of liberty and equality of opportunity, is incompatible with the Constitution, deprives the state of the fullest utilization of its capacities for production, and endangers the general welfare.

(b) Hiring bias against workers forty years or more of age deprives the state of its most important resource of experienced employees, adds to the number of persons receiving public assistance, and deprives older people of the dignity and status of self-support.

(c) The right to employment otherwise lawful without discrimination because of age, where the reasonable demands of the position do not require such an age distinction, is hereby recognized as and declared to be a right of all the people of the state which shall be protected as provided in the act.

(d) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to protect the right recognized and declared in subdivision (2)(c) of this section and to eliminate all such discrimination to the fullest extent permitted. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act shall be construed to effectuate such policy.

Laws 1963, c. 281, § 1, p. 838;

Laws 1972, LB 1357, § 1;

Laws 2007, LB265, § 13.

In an age discrimination suit brought under the Act Prohibiting Unjust Discrimination in Employment Because of Age, the jury is not to be instructed on the elements which constitute a submissible case. Although the ultimate burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence in an age discrimination action at all times remains with plaintiff, the method of proof is for plaintiff to prove a prima facie case; if plaintiff succeeds in proving a prima facie case, defendant has the burden of articulating some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Should defendant succeed in so doing, plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by defendant were not its true reasons, but a pretext for discrimination. Humphrey v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 243 Neb. 872, 503 N.W.2d 211 (1993).

In an age discrimination suit brought under the Act Prohibiting Unjust Discrimination in Employment Because of Age, the jury is not to be instructed on the elements which constitute a submissible case. Although the ultimate burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence in an age discrimination action at all times remains with plaintiff, the method of proof is for plaintiff to prove a prima facie case; if plaintiff succeeds in proving a prima facie case, defendant has the burden of articulating some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Should defendant succeed in so doing, plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by defendant were not its true reasons, but a pretext for discrimination. Humphrey v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 243 Neb. 872, 503 N.W.2d 211 (1993).

Persons seeking relief under this section must allege a violation by an employer of 25 or more persons. Steier v. Crosier Fathers of Hastings, 242 Neb. 16, 492 N.W.2d 870 (1992).

Persons seeking relief under this section must allege a violation by an employer of 25 or more persons. Steier v. Crosier Fathers of Hastings, 242 Neb. 16, 492 N.W.2d 870 (1992).

The federal practice for cases arising under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. sec. 621 et seq. (1982), may be instructive as to cases arising under the subject act. Allen v. AT&T Technologies, 228 Neb. 503, 423 N.W.2d 424 (1988).

st allege a violation by an employer of 25 or more persons. Steier v. Crosier Fathers of Hastings, 242 Neb. 16, 492 N.W.2d 870 (1992).

The federal practice for cases arising under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. sec. 621 et seq. (1982), may be instructive as to cases arising under the subject act. Allen v. AT&T Technologies, 228 Neb. 503, 423 N.W.2d 424 (1988).

The federal practice for cases arising under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. sec. 621 et seq. (1982), may be instructive as to cases arising under the subject act. Allen v. AT&T Technologies, 228 Neb. 503, 423 N.W.2d 424 (1988).

The state, through its Legislature, has acted to prohibit unjust discrimination in employment because of age. Midwest Employers Council, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 177 Neb. 877, 131 N.W.2d 609 (1964).

The state, through its Legislature, has acted to prohibit unjust discrimination in employment because of age. Midwest Employers Council, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 177 Neb. 877, 131 N.W.2d 609 (1964).