USA – NEBRASKA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Tara Paulson, Mark Fahleson and Julie Schumacher, Rembolt Ludtke LLP
Rembolt Ludtke LLP Rembolt Ludtke LLP 3 Landmark Centre 1128 Lincoln Mall Suite 300 Lincoln NE 68508 USA
Tel: +1 402 475 5100 Fax: +1 402 475 5087 Web: www.remboltlawfirm.com
Introduction This chapter of the guide provides a broad overview of some of the unique aspects of Nebraska employ - ment law. Like Nebraska’s one-house legislature (the Unicameral) and its status as the only state served solely by publicly owned power utilities, Nebraska employment law has some interesting quirks prac - titioners advising Nebraska organisations should be familiar with. Nebraska Nuances Employment at will is the foundation, but… Employment at will remains the foundation to every employment relationship in Nebraska. “When the employment is not for a definite term, and there are no contractual or statutory restrictions upon the right of discharge, an employer may lawfully discharge an employee whenever and for whatever cause he chooses, without incurring liability.” However, there are some unique twists to Nebraska’s application of Nebraska law recognises that oral statements by an employer or employee can alter an otherwise employ - ment-at-will relationship. In Hebard v Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. , 228 Neb. 15, 17, 421 N.W.2d 10, 12 (1988) the plaintiff employee alleged he had an oral contract with his employer with respect to employment and eligi - bility for incentive compensation. Finding the plain - tiff employee stated a cause of action, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that “[o]ral representations may, the at-will rule. Oral contracts
standing alone, constitute a promise sufficient to cre - ate contractual terms which could modify the at-will status of an employee”. Promissory estoppel Nebraska is in the minority of jurisdictions that rec - ognise the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the employment context. Promissory estoppel is gener - ally defined as “[a] promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise”. For example, in Goff-Hamel v Obstetricians & Gynecologists, P.C. , 256 Neb. 19, 588 N.W.2d 798 (1999), the plaintiff worked for a medical clinic for 11 years when she was approached by a competing practice in another town inquiring if she would come and work for them. The plaintiff initially declined the job offer, stating that she had made commitments to complete several projects for her current employer. A few months later the plaintiff was once again asked to “jump ship and come work for” the competing practice. At this time, the plaintiff expressed interest and accepted an offer for a full-time position with the competing practice, provided she could give several months’ advance notice to her current employer and complete several on-going projects. The plaintiff sub - sequently gave notice to her current employer and made arrangements to move and begin her new job.
761 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook