- 397 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

Paul Hoagbin, appellant, v. School District 

No. 28-0017 of Douglas County, Nebraska, 

also known as Millard Public Schools, 

a political subdivision of the State 

of Nebraska, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed February 3, 2023. No. S-21-1026.

1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court affirms a 

lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted 

evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or 

as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that 

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

2. ____: ____. An appellate court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable 

to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that 

party’s favor.

3. Contracts. The interpretation of a contract and whether the contract is 

ambiguous are questions of law.

4. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court independently 

reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.

5. Contracts: Wages. When a party’s Nebraska Wage Payment and 

Collection Act claim is premised on a written contract, the meaning of 

that contract may present a question of law to be decided by the court.

6. Contracts: Wages: Employer and Employee. Under the Nebraska 

Wage Payment and Collection Act, when the employee and the employer 

dispute whether compensation is owed based on an existing contract or agreement, the court determines the proper interpretation of 

the agreement.

7. Contracts. The meaning of an unambiguous contract is a question 

of law.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

02/03/2023 09:05 AM CST
- 398 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

8. Contracts: Wages. Relief, if any, under the Nebraska Wage Payment 

and Collection Act is specifically based on the agreement to pay 

the employee.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Timothy 

P. Burns, Judge. Affirmed.

Jonathan C. Hunzeker, of Norby & Welding, L.L.P., for 

appellant.

Duncan A. Young, Jeff C. Miller, and Keith I. Kosaki, of 

Young & White Law Office, for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Miller-Lerman, J.

I. NATURE OF CASE

Paul Hoagbin, a public school teacher, was underpaid for 

several years by the appellee, School District No. 28-0017 

of Douglas County, Nebraska, also known as Millard Public 

Schools (the District). After the salary error was discovered 

in 2018, the District corrected Hoagbin’s salary, retroactive 

to the start of the 2018-19 school year, but did not make 

corrections for prior school years. The District relied on 

the provision in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) 

which stated that “[a]ny error found in salary shall only be 

corrected retroactive to the beginning of the year in which the 

error was discovered . . . .” Hoagbin filed a grievance, which 

was denied at each stage as untimely and without merit. He 

sued the District in the district court for Douglas County 

and alleged, inter alia, that the Nebraska Wage Payment and 

Collection Act (NWPCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-1228 to 

48-1236 (Reissue 2021), provided him with an individual 

right to seek compensation for the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 

2017-18 school years and that this right was not affected by 

the CBA. The parties each moved for summary judgment, 
- 399 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

and the district court determined that Hoagbin could not 

succeed under the CBA or the NWPCA and granted the 

District’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm the order 

of the district court.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Hoagbin, a public school teacher, alleges that he is entitled 

to backpay due to errors in salary calculations for the 2015-

16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 school years. During the relevant 

years, Hoagbin had completed his master’s degree, as well 

as certain postgraduate credit hours. Hoagbin’s employment 

is part of the bargaining unit represented for purposes of collective bargaining by the Millard Education Association (the 

Union). Hoagbin’s individual contract with the District incorporated the CBA by reference.

In October 2018, the Union and the District discovered a 

salary calculation error affecting Hoagbin and seven other 

teachers. Hoagbin’s salary did not accurately reflect credit for 

his postgraduate study. The District corrected Hoagbin’s salary retroactive to the start of the 2018-19 school year; because 

of the provision in the CBA, the District did not correct errors 

made in prior school years.

The CBA applicable to the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-

19 school years contains the following language, changed 

only with respect to updating the years given by example in 

the clause:

Any error found in salary shall only be corrected retroactive to the beginning of the year in which the error was 

discovered or the year in which the specific error was 

brought to the attention of Human Resources in writing 

(e.g. a salary error discovered in January of 2016 will 

be corrected retroactively to the September of 2015 pay 

period). The District may (but shall not be required) to 

delay the correction of errors that decrease a teacher’s 

salary until the next contract year.
- 400 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

After the salary error had been corrected and Hoagbin 

had started receiving retroactive backpay, Hoagbin contacted 

the District’s human resources department in November 2018 

to inquire about the accuracy of his November paycheck. 

Hoagbin was concerned that the increased amount was a mistake and that he would later be required to pay money back to 

the District. On December 19, an employee from the human 

resources department emailed Hoagbin and informed him of 

the error concerning the initial 2018-19 salary calculation 

and an explanation of the error. The email further informed 

Hoagbin that his 2018-19 salary had been corrected, and it 

advised him that he would receive backpay retroactive to the 

start of the 2018-19 school year pursuant to the terms of the 

2017-19 CBA.

In April 2019, a representative from the Nebraska State 

Education Association contacted the District’s office of human 

resources to inquire further about the salary error and its 

discovery. The Nebraska State Education Association is the 

Union’s parent labor organization and is not a collective bargaining agent for Hoagbin. A human resources employee 

replied that the 2018-19 salary calculation error was caused by 

the failure to include Hoagbin’s postgraduate credit hours and 

that the same error predated the 2018-19 school year. The April 

22, 2019, email from human resources stated:

Based on the wording of the [CBA], we have made 

this correction retroactive to the start of the 2018-19 

school year. However, consistent with other salary errors 

(both in favor of the employee as well as [in] favor of 

the District), we are not going back to prior school years 

for this error.

On April 14, 2020, Hoagbin filed a written grievance to 

his building principal, and by agreement of the parties, it 

was submitted to the associate superintendent for human 

resources. The grievance sought backpay for the 2015-16, 

2016-17, and 2017-18 school years. The grievance immediately proceeded to the second level. On April 28, the associate 
- 401 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

superintendent issued a written decision that denied the grievance, because (1) having been submitted more than one calendar year after the events giving rise to the grievance, it was 

out of time; and (2) the 2017-19 CBA between the District 

and the Union limited retroactive backpay or recoupment 

to the school year in which the salary error was reported to 

the District. Hoagbin appealed to the District’s superintendent, who denied the grievance based on the CBA.

Thereafter, Hoagbin filed suit in district court, alleging, 

inter alia, that he had an individual statutory right to payment 

under the NWPCA, which cannot be waived by the CBA or 

the District’s grievance rule. The parties each moved for summary judgment. Following a hearing on whether Hoagbin was 

entitled to backpay for the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 

school years under the terms of the CBA, the district court 

granted the District’s motion and denied Hoagbin’s motion 

for summary judgment. Although the district court expressed 

sympathy with Hoagbin’s circumstance, it determined that 

the CBA did not permit Hoagbin’s salary to be corrected 

retroactively and that Hoagbin was not entitled to an award 

of wages under the NWPCA. According to the undisputed 

evidence, the salary error was discovered and reported during 

the 2018-19 school year, and Hoagbin’s salary was corrected 

retroactively to the beginning of that school year. The district 

court interpreted the CBA and determined that the District 

had not agreed to pay Hoagbin additional backpay under the 

CBA, and consequently was not obligated to do so under the 

NWPCA. The district court noted that the same provision limiting an employee’s right to collect underpaid compensation 

for prior years would also prevent the District from recouping 

an overpaid employee’s salary for prior years. The district 

court also explained that under the CBA and the grievance 

procedure, Hoagbin did not timely pursue his right to grieve 

his wage issue.

Hoagbin appeals.
- 402 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Hoagbin assigns, restated, that the district court erred generally when it determined that the District was entitled to summary judgment and specifically determined (1) that the CBA 

waived employees’ rights to collect underpaid compensation 

and hence there was no right thereto under the NWPCA and 

(2) that Hoagbin failed to timely grieve the issue of backpay.

IV. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

[1] An appellate court affirms a lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show 

that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as 

to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts 

and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law. Carrizales v. Creighton St. Joseph, 312 Neb. 296, 979 

N.W.2d 81 (2022).

[2] An appellate court reviews the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Id.

[3,4] The interpretation of a contract and whether the contract is ambiguous are questions of law. Lassalle v. State, 

307 Neb. 221, 948 N.W.2d 725 (2020). An appellate court 

independently reviews questions of law decided by a lower 

court. Id.

V. ANALYSIS

Hoagbin contends generally that the retroactive pay he seeks 

in this action should be considered “wages” which are owed 

to him under the NWPCA and that such pay could not be 

eclipsed by provisions of the CBA either through its grievance 

procedure or by its provision limiting retroactive pay. We reject 

these contentions.

1. NWPCA General Provisions

The NWPCA obligates an employer to “pay all wages due 

its employees on regular days designated by the employer 
- 403 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

or agreed upon by the employer and employee.” § 48-1230(1). 

An employee may sue his or her employer if the employer 

fails to pay the employee’s wages as they become due. 

Lassalle v. State, supra. Under the NWPCA, “[w]ages” are 

defined as “compensation for labor or services rendered by 

an employee . . . when previously agreed to and conditions 

stipulated have been met by the employee.” § 48-1229(6). 

Thus, a payment will be considered “wages” subject to the 

NWPCA if (1) it is compensation for labor or services, (2) it 

was previously agreed to, and (3) all the conditions stipulated 

have been met. § 48-1229(6).

In a case purportedly subject to the NWPCA, the court 

first determines whether the compensation sought by the 

employee is a wage subject to the NWPCA. It is undisputed 

that Hoagbin rendered services and seeks compensation for 

his past service, thus satisfying the first element noted above. 

However, to prove the second and third elements noted above, 

the undisputed evidence must show that the District previously agreed to pay Hoagbin retroactively in the manner and 

amount he seeks and that all conditions to which the parties 

stipulated have been met.

In its ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment, 

the district court analyzed, inter alia, the 2017-19 CBA and 

its designated grievance procedure—the District’s board of 

education rule 4325.1 (Rule)—and determined that no agreement existed to support retroactive pay and that Hoagbin did 

not adhere to timeliness conditions that would support an 

NWPCA claim. As we explain below, we find no error in the 

district court’s analysis, and for convenience, we first analyze 

the grievance procedure’s timeliness condition and thereafter 

analyze the substantive terms of the agreement.

(a) NWPCA: Timeliness Condition of 

Grievance Procedure Not Satisfied

As the District correctly contends, Hoagbin’s claim for retroactive pay directly concerns the grievance procedure and its 
- 404 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

timeframes as set forth in the Rule incorporated in the CBA 

by reference. The Rule provides, inter alia, that an employee 

“shall” initiate the first step of the grievance procedure “within 

ten (10) working days after the occurrence of the event or 

condition which is the subject of the grievance or the last of a 

series of events and conditions which constitute the grievance.” 

The Rule further states:

I. Any employee who has a grievance not otherwise 

covered by a grievance procedure included within a 

[CBA] or other specific grievance procedure shall use the 

procedures set forth in this Rule. The District shall consider the grievance abandoned and moot if the grievant 

fails to comply with the requirements and time limits set 

forth in this Rule.

. . . .

VI. The time limits in these procedures are for the 

purpose of insuring prompt action. If an employee does 

not pursue the next step of a procedure within the time 

period specified, it shall constitute an abandonment of 

the grievance.

Although the District waived certain formalities in the grievance process, there is no dispute that the 10-day period for 

initiating a grievance remained in force, and to the contrary, 

the District explicitly did not waive the 10-day requirement.

Even giving Hoagbin the benefit of all inferences in the 

record, it is undisputed that he was aware of the “event” 

denying him compensation in prior years by April 22, 2019, 

the date of the email he received explaining that the salary 

correction the District had undertaken would not be applied 

retroactive to prior school years. Hoagbin filed his salary 

grievance nearly a year later, in April 2020. By not grieving 

the District’s decision within the 10 days of its occurrence, 

Hoagbin abandoned his grievance, according to paragraph VI 

of the Rule.

Thus, because Hoagbin did not satisfy the conditions of 

the parties’ agreement set forth in the Rule for maintaining 
- 405 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

a grievance, the district court correctly determined that the 

evidence failed to show that all the conditions stipulated to 

had been met. See Drought v. Marsh, 304 Neb. 860, 937 

N.W.2d 229 (2020) (noting employees did not meet conditions 

required under written employment agreement). Accordingly, 

Hoagbin’s claim is not for “[w]ages” subject to the NWPCA. 

See § 48-1229(6).

(b) NWPCA: No Agreement to Pay 

Full Retroactive Compensation

[5-7] Even assuming the failure to adhere to the grievance 

timeliness procedure did not bar Hoagbin’s claims, examining the agreement, we agree with the district court that there 

was no agreement to correct salary errors retroactively beyond 

the beginning of the school year in which the error was discovered. Although Hoagbin frames his claim as arising under 

the NWPCA, he also alleged that his right to a further salary 

adjustment arose out of the written labor contracts with the 

District. We have observed that when a party’s NWPCA claim 

is premised on a written contract, the meaning of that contract 

may present a question of law to be decided by the court. 

Lassalle v. State, 307 Neb. 221, 948 N.W.2d 725 (2020). When 

the employee and the employer dispute whether compensation is owed based on an existing contract or agreement, the 

court determines the proper interpretation of the agreement. 

Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Omaha, 290 Neb. 

300, 860 N.W.2d 137 (2015). A court may make such a determination because the meaning of an unambiguous contract is a 

question of law. Lassalle v. State, supra.

The CBA provided that any salary error shall only be corrected retroactive to the beginning of the school year in which 

the error was discovered or the year in which the specific 

error was brought to the attention of human resources. Given 

the unambiguous language of the CBA, Hoagbin’s claim that 

he is entitled to compensation for errors in prior years is not 

well founded.
- 406 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

The underpayment error was discovered and reported during the 2018-19 school year, and under the CBA, the District 

properly corrected the error retroactively limited to the beginning of that school year. Hoagbin did not have an agreement 

to be paid for salary errors made in prior school years once 

they had passed without discovery of the error. The backpay he 

sought was not compensation to which the parties had agreed, 

and accordingly was not “[w]ages” subject to the NWPCA. 

See § 48-1229(6).

2. Retroactive Pay Provision 

Proper Subject of CBA and Not 

Inconsistent With Obligations 

Under NWPCA

Hoagbin also contends that notwithstanding the terms of the 

CBA discussed above, the NWPCA creates an individual statutory right to receive wages that effectively overrides the limitations of the written employment contract between the parties. 

We reject this contention.

Hoagbin asserts, rephrased, that the contractual limitation 

on correcting past salary errors is not a proper subject of 

a bargaining agreement, because such limitation is inconsistent with the NWPCA. In this regard, he relies on the 

U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best 

Freight System, 450 U.S. 728, 101 S. Ct. 1437, 67 L. Ed. 2d 

641 (1981). Hoagbin’s reliance is misplaced. In Barrentine, 

unionized truckdrivers sought compensation for conducting 

mandatory pretrip safety inspections for which they were not 

getting paid. After their grievance was unsuccessful, the truckdrivers filed an action against their employer under the federal 

Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court concluded that the act 

conferred statutory rights to a minimum wage and overtime 

pay and that thus, the provisions in the bargaining agreement to the contrary could not eclipse these statutory rights. 

Barrentine is inapposite.
- 407 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

As we understand his argument, Hoagbin is challenging the 

CBA on public policy grounds or, alternatively, is asserting 

that the NWPCA provides an independent right. We believe 

that Hoagbin’s argument lacks merit.

[8] In the context of wrongful discharge, we have noted 

that the NWPCA does not represent a “‘very clear mandate of 

public policy,’” and we have declined to use the NWPCA to 

provide a basis for additional civil actions. Malone v. American 

Bus. Info., 262 Neb. 733, 739, 634 N.W.2d 788, 793 (2001). 

We have also noted that the NWPCA does not impose criminal 

sanctions. Malone v. American Bus. Info., supra. The NWPCA 

is designed to allow workers to enforce “substantive rights to 

compensation for work performed”; the right to payment of 

wages arises “not from the statute but from the employment 

relationship itself.” Malone v. American Bus. Info., 262 Neb. 

at 739-40, 634 N.W.2d at 793. The NWPCA does not declare 

an important public policy which could provide an independent 

basis for civil relief separate from the employment agreement. 

Malone v. American Bus. Info., supra. Relief, if any, under 

the NWPCA is specifically based on the agreement to pay the 

employee. See Lassalle v. State, 307 Neb. 221, 948 N.W.2d 

725 (2020).

For completeness, we note that we are aware of decisions 

in addition to Barrentine which illustrate the public policy 

limits of collective bargaining agreements. Compare Varner 

v. National Super Markets, Inc., 94 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir. 1996) 

(concluding sexual harassment claim not limited by grievance 

procedures in bargaining agreement, because courts possess 

specific plenary powers to secure compliance with title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). See, also, Hogelin v. City of 

Columbus, 274 Neb. 453, 741 N.W.2d 617 (2007) (noting collective bargaining agreement did not waive statutory maximum 

hours for firefighters). In view of the foregoing, we reject 

Hoagbin’s assertion of rights under the NWPCA independent 

of the parties’ agreement.
- 408 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

313 Nebraska Reports

HOAGBIN V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 28-0017

Cite as 313 Neb. 397

VI. CONCLUSION

As explained above, the district court did not err when it 

determined that the compensation Hoagbin seeks in this action 

was not wages under the NWPCA and therefore not eligible 

for an award under the NWPCA. Additionally, we have concluded that the terms of the CBA on which the District and 

court relied to deny recovery are not against public policy 

embedded in the NWPCA. The district court did not err when 

it granted summary judgment in favor of the District and 

denied Hoagbin’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm 

the order of the district court.

Affirmed.