Court Opinion

ID: 9368242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 15:05:56.680237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.616257
License: Public Domain

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
02/03/2023 09:05 AM CST

                                                         - 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 sum-
                    mary 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 con-
                    tract or agreement, the court determines the proper interpretation of
                    the agreement.
                 7. Contracts. The meaning of an unambiguous contract is a question
                    of law.
                               - 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 col-
lective bargaining by the Millard Education Association (the
Union). Hoagbin’s individual contract with the District incor-
porated 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 sal-
ary 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 retroac-
      tive 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 mis-
take 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 bar-
gaining 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 immedi-
ately 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 griev-
ance, because (1) having been submitted more than one cal-
endar 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 superintend­
ent, 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 sum-
mary 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 lim-
iting 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 gener-
ally when it determined that the District was entitled to sum-
mary 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 sum-
mary 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 reason-
able inferences in that party’s favor. Id.
   [3,4] The interpretation of a contract and whether the con-
tract 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 previ-
ously 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 agree-
ment 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 ret-
roactive 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 con-
      sider 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 griev-
ance 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, examin-
ing 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 dis-
covered. 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 compensa-
tion 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 deter-
mination 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 cor-
rected 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 dur-
ing the 2018-19 school year, and under the CBA, the District
properly corrected the error retroactively limited to the begin-
ning 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 statu-
tory right to receive wages that effectively overrides the limita-
tions 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 incon-
sistent 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 truck-
drivers 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 agree-
ment 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 col-
lective 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 con-
cluded 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.