Opinion ID: 1868913
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: applicability of burden-shifting analysis

Text: In cases involving claims of employment discrimination, albeit not involving workers' compensation claims, this court has recognized the burden-shifting analysis which originated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See, e.g., Billingsley v. BFM Liquor Mgmt., 264 Neb. 56, 645 N.W.2d 791 (2002) (age discrimination); Father Flanagan's Boys' Home v. Agnew, 256 Neb. 394, 590 N.W.2d 688 (1999) (gender discrimination); Father Flanagan's Boys' Home v. Goerke, 224 Neb. 731, 401 N.W.2d 461 (1987) (discrimination against person with disability); Harris v. Misty Lounge, Inc., 220 Neb. 678, 371 N.W.2d 688 (1985) (retaliatory discharge for filing claim with Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission); Zalkins Peerless Co. v. Nebraska Equal Opp. Comm., 217 Neb. 289, 348 N.W.2d 846 (1984) (gender discrimination). This court has noted that as clarified in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993), ` McDonnell Douglas Corp. allocates the burden of production and the order for the presentation of the evidence; the ultimate burden of persuasion, however, rests on the plaintiff.' Billingsley, 264 Neb. at 70, 645 N.W.2d at 803. The following procedure is utilized under the three-tiered allocation of proof standard: First, the plaintiff has the burden of proving a prima facie case of discrimination. See Goerke, supra . Second, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving that prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant-employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiff's rejection or discharge from employment. See id. This burden is a burden of production, not of persuasion. See Lincoln County Sheriff's Office v. Horne, 228 Neb. 473, 423 N.W.2d 412 (1988). The employer need only explain what has been done or produce evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the decision. Id. It is sufficient if the employer's evidence raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the employee. Id. `If the defendant carries this burden of production, the presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted . . . and drops from the case. . . .' (Citation omitted.) Agnew, 256 Neb. at 402, 590 N.W.2d at 694, quoting St. Mary's Honor Center, supra . Third, assuming the employer establishes an articulated nondiscriminatory reason for disparate treatment of an employee, the employee maintains the burden of proving that the stated reason was pretextual and not the true reason for the employer's decision; i.e., that the disparate treatment would not have occurred but for the employer's discriminatory reasons. Lincoln County Sheriff's Office, supra . Most jurisdictions apply the above-described analysis to workers' compensation retaliatory discharge cases. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. City of Minneapolis, 267 F.Supp.2d 1004 (D.Minn.2003) (applying Minnesota law); Provo v. Continental Eagle Corp., 650 So.2d 881 (Ala.1994); Ford v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 216 Conn. 40, 578 A.2d 1054 (1990); Rebarchek v. Farmers Co-op. Elevator, 272 Kan. 546, 35 P.3d 892 (2001); Buckner v. General Motors Corp., 760 P.2d 803 (Okla.1988); Hinton v. Designer Ensembles, Inc., 343 S.C. 236, 540 S.E.2d 94 (2000); La Tier v. Compaq Computer Corp., 123 S.W.3d 557 (Tex.App.2003); Wentworth v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, 171 Vt. 614, 765 A.2d 456 (2000); Wilmot v. Kaiser Aluminum, 118 Wash.2d 46, 821 P.2d 18 (1991); Cardwell v. American Linen Supply, 843 P.2d 596 (Wyo.1992). See, generally, 3 Natl. Employment Lawyers Assn., Employee Rights Litigation: Pleading and Practice § 11.06 (Janice Goodman ed., 2005) (describing allocation of burdens of production and proof, and providing additional and contra authority). Like the trial court in the present case, we will apply the burden-shifting analysis this court has utilized in employment discrimination actions to this case involving retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim. Our conclusion, however, differs from that of the trial court.