Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1107.02 — NE Code / Chapter 48 / Section 48-1107.02
View Statute 48-1107.02
Status: in_force

(1) When referring to a qualified individual with a disability, discrimination shall include:

(a) Limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of the applicant or employee because of the disability of the applicant or employee;

(b) Participating in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a qualified individual with a disability to discrimination in the application or employment process, including a relationship with an employment agency, a labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs;

(c) Utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration (i) that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability or (ii) that perpetuate the discrimination against others who are subject to common administrative control;

(d) Excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual with a disability because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual with a disability is known to have a relationship or association;

(e) Not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity;

(f) Denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is otherwise a qualified individual with a disability if the denial is based upon the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant;

(g) Using qualification standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test, or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity;

(h) Failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when the test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor of the applicant or employee that the test purports to measure rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills of the employee or applicant except when such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure;

(i) Conducting a medical examination or making inquiries of a job applicant as to whether the applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, except that:

(i) A covered entity may make preemployment inquiries into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions;

(ii) A test to determine the illegal use of drugs shall not be considered a medical examination; and

(iii) A covered entity may require a medical examination after an offer of employment has been made to a job applicant and prior to the commencement of the employment duties of the applicant and may condition an offer of employment on the results of the examination if:

(A) All entering employees are subjected to such an examination regardless of disability;

(B) Information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of the applicant is collected and maintained on separate forms and in separate medical files and is treated as a confidential medical record, except that (I) supervisors and managers may be informed regarding necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and necessary accommodations, (II) first-aid and safety personnel may be informed, when appropriate, if the disability might require emergency treatment, (III) government officials investigating compliance with the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act shall be provided relevant information on request, and (IV) information shall be made available in accordance with the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act; and

(C) The results of the examination are used only in a manner not inconsistent with the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act; and

(j) Requiring a medical examination or making inquiries of an employee as to whether the employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless the examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. A test to determine the illegal use of drugs shall not be considered a medical examination. A covered entity may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, which are part of an employee health program available to employees at the worksite and may make inquiries into the ability of an employee to perform job-related functions if the information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of the employee is subject to the requirements in subdivisions (1)(i)(iii)(B) and (C) of this section.

(2) When referring to an individual who is pregnant, who has given birth, or who has a related medical condition, discrimination shall include:

(a) Limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of the applicant or employee because of the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of the applicant or employee;

(b) Participating in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting an individual who is pregnant, who has given birth, or who has a related medical condition to discrimination in the application or employment process, including a relationship with an employment agency, a labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs;

(c) Utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration (i) that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions or (ii) that perpetuate the discrimination against others who are subject to common administrative control;

(d) Not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical limitations of an individual who is pregnant, who has given birth, or who has a related medical condition and who is an applicant or employee unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity;

(e) Denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is pregnant, who has given birth, or who has a related medical condition if the denial is based upon the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical limitations due to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of the employee or applicant;

(f) Using qualification standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual or a class of individuals who are pregnant, who have given birth, or who have a related medical condition unless the standard, test, or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity;

(g) Conducting a medical examination or making inquiries of a job applicant as to whether the applicant is pregnant, has given birth, or has a related medical condition, except that:

(i) A covered entity may make preemployment inquiries into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions;

(ii) A test to determine the illegal use of drugs shall not be considered a medical examination; and

(iii) A covered entity may require a medical examination after an offer of employment has been made to a job applicant and prior to the commencement of the employment duties of the applicant and may condition an offer of employment on the results of the examination if:

(A) All entering employees are subjected to such an examination;

(B) Information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of the applicant is collected and maintained on separate forms and in separate medical files and is treated as a confidential medical record, except that (I) supervisors and managers may be informed regarding necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and necessary accommodations, (II) first-aid and safety personnel may be informed, when appropriate, if the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions might require emergency treatment, (III) government officials investigating compliance with the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act shall be provided relevant information on request, and (IV) information shall be made available in accordance with the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act; and

(C) The results of the examination are used only in a manner not inconsistent with the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act;

(h) Requiring a medical examination or making inquiries of an employee as to whether the employee is pregnant, has given birth, or has a related medical condition unless the examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. A test to determine the illegal use of drugs shall not be considered a medical examination. A covered entity may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, which are part of an employee health program available to employees at the worksite and may make inquiries into the ability of an employee to perform job-related functions if the information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of the employee is subject to the requirements in subdivisions (2)(g)(iii)(B) and (C) of this section;

(i) Requiring an employee to take leave under any leave law or policy of the covered entity if another reasonable accommodation can be provided to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of the employee; and

(j) Taking adverse action against an employee in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment for requesting or using a reasonable accommodation to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of the employee.

Laws 1993, LB 360, § 6;

Laws 2015, LB627, § 3.

Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, see section 48-1,110 .

A covered employer's failure to make reasonable accommodations for a qualified individual's known physical or mental limitations is discrimination, unless the employer demonstrates that accommodating the individual's limitations would impose an undue hardship on business operations. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

A covered employer's failure to make reasonable accommodations for a qualified individual's known physical or mental limitations is discrimination, unless the employer demonstrates that accommodating the individual's limitations would impose an undue hardship on business operations. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

Former subdivision (9)(c) of this section applies to entrance medical examinations of applicants who have been offered employment, whereas former subsection (10) applies to medical examinations of employees. The latter is prohibited unless the employer shows that the examination is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

Former subdivision (9)(c) of this section applies to entrance medical examinations of applicants who have been offered employment, whereas former subsection (10) applies to medical examinations of employees. The latter is prohibited unless the employer shows that the examination is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

Psychological counseling is usually a medical examination under former subsection (10) of this section. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

Psychological counseling is usually a medical examination under former subsection (10) of this section. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

The court erred in excluding the testimony of an employee's expert that was relevant to establishing the employee's permanent disability, the employer's knowledge of his disability, and whether he had previously performed his job with accommodations that the employer had considered reasonable. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

The court erred in excluding the testimony of an employee's expert that was relevant to establishing the employee's permanent disability, the employer's knowledge of his disability, and whether he had previously performed his job with accommodations that the employer had considered reasonable. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

The threshold fact of consequence in a disability discrimination action is whether the plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability—i.e., one who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

The threshold fact of consequence in a disability discrimination action is whether the plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability—i.e., one who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodations. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

Under former subsection (10) of this section, an employer's doubts about an employee's ability to perform the essential functions of a job may be created by an employee's request for accommodations, frequent absences, or request for leave because of his or her medical condition. Such doubts can also be raised by the employer's knowledge of an employee's behavior that poses a direct threat to the employee or others. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

Under former subsection (10) of this section, an employer's doubts about an employee's ability to perform the essential functions of a job may be created by an employee's request for accommodations, frequent absences, or request for leave because of his or her medical condition. Such doubts can also be raised by the employer's knowledge of an employee's behavior that poses a direct threat to the employee or others. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

Under former subsection (10) of this section, to show a business necessity for requiring an employee to submit to a medical examination, an employer has the burden to show that (1) the business necessity is vital to the business; (2) it has a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to doubt the employee's ability to perform the essential functions of his or her duties; and (3) the examination is no broader than necessary. There must be significant evidence that could cause a reasonable person to inquire as to whether an employee is still capable of performing his job. An employee's behavior cannot be merely annoying or inefficient to justify an examination; rather, there must be genuine reason to doubt whether that employee can perform job-related functions. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

Under former subsection (10) of this section, to show a business necessity for requiring an employee to submit to a medical examination, an employer has the burden to show that (1) the business necessity is vital to the business; (2) it has a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to doubt the employee's ability to perform the essential functions of his or her duties; and (3) the examination is no broader than necessary. There must be significant evidence that could cause a reasonable person to inquire as to whether an employee is still capable of performing his job. An employee's behavior cannot be merely annoying or inefficient to justify an examination; rather, there must be genuine reason to doubt whether that employee can perform job-related functions. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

Under former subsection (10) of this section, whether an employer requires similarly situated employees to submit to a medical examination is relevant to whether the employer considers such examinations a business necessity. But any comparison between employees must be made with an eye to the ultimate inquiry, i.e., the necessity of the examination of the plaintiff employee. An employer's disparate treatment of employees regarding medical examinations cannot override substantial evidence that the employer had good reason to doubt the employee's ability to perform the essential functions of the job. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

Under former subsection (10) of this section, whether an employer requires similarly situated employees to submit to a medical examination is relevant to whether the employer considers such examinations a business necessity. But any comparison between employees must be made with an eye to the ultimate inquiry, i.e., the necessity of the examination of the plaintiff employee. An employer's disparate treatment of employees regarding medical examinations cannot override substantial evidence that the employer had good reason to doubt the employee's ability to perform the essential functions of the job. Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).