Nebraska — Workplace Discrimination

The Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA), codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-1101 to 48-1127, prohibits employment discrimination by employers with 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year—a threshold matching Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act. The Act also covers the State of Nebraska, governmental agencies, and political subdivisions regardless of employee count. Protected classes under § 48-1104 are race, color, religion, sex, disability, marital status, national origin, and military or veteran status.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1104

A written charge alleging violation of the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act must be filed with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission within 300 days after the occurrence of the alleged unlawful employment practice. The charge must include a statement of the date, place, and circumstances of the alleged violation, and notice of the charge must be served upon the respondent within ten days after filing.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1118(2)

Under Nebraska Revised Statute § 48-1104(1), it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual on the basis of disability. The Nebraska Supreme Court’s rehearing decision in Marshall v. EyeCare Specialties, 293 Neb. 91, 876 N.W.2d 372 (2016)—which specifically withdraws and supersedes the earlier 2015 opinion—confirms that the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA) does provide protection against discrimination on a “regarded as” or perceived disability basis, but under a nuanced standard.

Perceived Disability ("Regarded As") Rule:

• The court held that an employee is protected where the employer perceives them as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, such as working, even if the employee does not in fact have such an impairment.
• The facts in Marshall established a genuine dispute as to whether the employer perceived the plaintiff’s skin condition and tremors as substantially limiting her ability to work, supporting a perceived disability claim.
• However, the court affirmed summary judgment for the employer where the record did not show that the employer regarded the plaintiff’s past chemical dependence as substantially limiting a major life activity.

Key Practice Point:

• Practitioners must rely on the 2016 rehearing opinion, not the withdrawn 2015 version, when addressing “regarded as” disability claims under FEPA.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1104(1) Source: Marshall v. EyeCare Specialties, 293 Neb. 91, 876 N.W.2d 372 (2016) (rehearing opinion)

Nebraska updated its Fair Employment Practice Act with the passage of LB 451 (2021), amending Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102 to include specific protections against hair-based race discrimination. Effective September 2021, the act expanded the statutory definition of "race" to expressly "include characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, and protective hairstyles" with an explicit listing of braids, locks, and twists. This amendment, known as the CROWN Act (Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair), codifies that adverse employment actions based on these hair characteristics constitute race discrimination under Nebraska FEPA.

Statutory Text and Scope

• Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102(19) defines "Race includes characteristics associated with race, including but not limited to skin color, hair texture, and protective hairstyles." Protective hairstyles specifically "includes braids, locks, and twists."
• The statutory prohibition on race discrimination in employment, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1104(1), thus incorporates these expanded definitions: any adverse employment action based on skin color, hair texture, or protective hairstyles is actionable as race discrimination before the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC).
• This interpretation is explicitly mandated by the statutory cross-reference: FEPA's protected characteristics are defined by § 48-1102 and enforced by § 48-1104.

Practical Implication for Employers

• Employers may not make employment decisions—such as hiring, firing, promotion, or discipline—based on an individual's natural hair texture or a protective style (e.g., braids, locks, twists) to the extent these are linked to race.
• These protections apply to all workplaces covered by the FEPA (15+ employees), and claims may be filed as race discrimination with the NEOC.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102(19)-(20); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1104

Nebraska prohibits age discrimination under a law separate from the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA). The Nebraska Age Discrimination in Employment Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-1001 et seq.) specifically addresses discrimination against workers who are 40 years of age or older.

Coverage and Scope:

• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the "Age Act") applies to private and nonprofit employers with 20 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks (mirroring the federal ADEA threshold), as well as to state agencies, political subdivisions, and municipalities, regardless of size (see § 48-1002(2)).
• By contrast, Nebraska's FEPA covers employers with 15 or more employees and does not list age as a protected class; it addresses race, color, religion, sex, disability, marital status, national origin, and military/veteran status (§ 48-1104).

Filing Deadline:

• A charge of age discrimination must be filed with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, the same filing window as under FEPA and the federal ADEA (§ 48-1006(4)).

Key Differences for Practitioners:

• Age discrimination claims in Nebraska are not brought under FEPA but are governed by the Age Act.
• The Age Act's 20-employee threshold is higher than FEPA's 15-employee coverage for other protected traits, though public employers are covered regardless of headcount.
• Age claims must still be timely filed with the NEOC within 300 days from the date of harm.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1002; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1006

At its simplest: before you can go to court under § 48‑1119(4), you must first have a pending NEOC charge. The statute allows direct filing “at any stage of the proceedings prior to dismissal.” That presumes proceedings already have started—meaning you must file a charge with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) to trigger any stage at all. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48‑1119(4) says this plainly: once proceedings have begun, and before NEOC dismisses the matter, you may file suit in district court—but only if you’ve suffered physical, emotional, or financial harm, and only by giving written notice to NEOC, which immediately ends NEOC’s proceedings.

The administrative rule—138 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 2, § 001—states that “a Complainant may file an action in state district court anytime prior to the dismissal of the charge.” That again confirms the prerequisite of a charge filed with NEOC—without a charge there’s nothing to be dismissed. The full NEOC rules are now published by the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission at https://neoc.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/FEPARules_0.pdf (see section 2.001.10).

So the practical steps are:

1. File a charge with NEOC—signed, notarized, within the statutory filing deadline.
2. NEOC opens proceedings, potentially including intake, mediation, investigation.
3. Before NEOC dismisses the charge, if you’ve suffered the requisite harm, you may file directly in district court.
4. You must then send written notice of that filing to NEOC, which terminates NEOC’s process immediately.
5. The district court proceeds as a normal civil action, and if you succeed, you may recover relief including injunctive relief, general and special damages, fees, and costs.

In other words, direct‑filing is an alternate path once you've engaged NEOC—not a way to avoid it entirely.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1119(4) 138 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 2, § 001 (NEOC rules PDF, 2024)

Nebraska law explicitly prohibits pregnancy discrimination as a form of sex discrimination in employment—a rule that postdates the Nebraska Supreme Court’s holding in Richards v. Omaha Public Schools, 194 Neb. 463 (1975).

Historical context—Richards (1975): In Richards, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that pregnancy-based distinctions did not constitute "sex discrimination" under the then-existing version of the FEPA, relying heavily on the contemporaneous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Geduldig v. Aiello. However, Nebraska’s law has since been fundamentally amended.

Current statute:

• The Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act was explicitly amended to define "because of sex" to include "because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions" (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102(13)).
• The law separately defines "individual who is pregnant, who has given birth, or who has a related medical condition" (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102(18)), and requires employers to treat these individuals the same as temporarily disabled employees, including provision of reasonable accommodation and leaves of absence, as detailed in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1111(4).
• Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1107.02 makes it an unlawful employment practice to refuse to accommodate pregnancy or related medical conditions, to take adverse action based on pregnancy, or to require medical certifications that are not required of other employees with similar ability or inability to work.

Practical implications:

• Employers must provide reasonable accommodations for employees affected by pregnancy, including transfer to less strenuous positions if medically advisable.
• Medical documentation may only be required if imposed equally for all health conditions.
• The legislature’s explicit language has overtaken and superseded Richards; pregnancy discrimination now clearly falls within FEPA protection.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1107.02 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1111

Nebraska FEPA and ADA — statutory definitions and similarity

Nebraska’s Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA) establishes a duty for employers to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities. The core definitions—such as “qualified individual with a disability”—parallel the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102(10), a qualified individual is one who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job; the accommodation requirement is codified at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1107.02(1)(e).

Reasonable accommodation requirements Nebraska’s law requires reasonable accommodation for the “known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability.” The employer’s obligation is triggered once the limitation is known (by employee request or clear need)—the statute does not speak to constructive or imputed notice. Statutory examples of reasonable accommodations (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102(11)) include:

• Making existing facilities accessible;
• Job restructuring;
• Part-time or modified work schedules;
• Acquisition or modification of equipment;
• Appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials, or policies;
• Provision of qualified readers or interpreters; and
• Reassignment to a vacant position.

This list is representative, not exhaustive; the Nebraska statute uses language (“may include but is not limited to…”) that signals flexibility, similar to the ADA at 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9).

Undue hardship — factors under Nebraska law Nebraska FEPA defines “undue hardship” using a non-exclusive four-part test (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102(11)):

• The nature and net cost of the accommodation;
• The overall financial resources of the facility and the covered entity;
• The type of operations of the employer;
• The impact of accommodation on facility operations.

These factors nearly mirror the ADA’s undue hardship criteria (see 42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)).

Interpretive differences? As of 2026-06-27, unable to confirm any published Nebraska Supreme Court or NEOC guidance holding that FEPA provides broader or narrower protection than the ADA on reasonable accommodation or the undue hardship defense. The statutes are highly similar, but state claimants proceed before the NEOC and under separate state law.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102 Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1107.02

Nebraska’s Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA) defines which entities qualify as “employers” for the purposes of workplace discrimination laws, and carves out explicit exemptions at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102(2). The following entities are excluded from the definition of "employer" under FEPA and thus are not subject to its requirements:

• The United States government.
• A corporation wholly owned by the United States government.
• An Indian tribe.
• A bona fide private membership club exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code.

The statute reads: "Employer shall not include (a) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the government of the United States, or an Indian tribe, or (b) a bona fide private membership club, other than a labor organization, which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code."

All other private employers, the State of Nebraska, and its political subdivisions may be covered if they meet FEPA’s employee threshold (for private employers, 15 or more employees as separately defined in the Act).

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1102(2)

Nebraska’s Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA) contains two significant limited exemptions from its general bar on employment discrimination:

Religious Organization Exemption under § 48‑1103(1) FEPA does not make it unlawful for a religious corporation, association, or society to employ individuals of a particular religion “to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activities.” This exemption is limited to roles tied to religious activities—not all jobs within a religious organization are categorically exempt. For example, a church may consider religion in hiring ministers, teachers of faith, or staff involved in religious instruction. However, purely secular roles (such as custodial staff or administrative accountants) are not clearly covered by the statutory exemption unless their work is “connected” to religious activities. The Nebraska statute does not further define this line, nor does it expressly grant a blanket exemption for all roles. No controlling Nebraska appellate decision as of July 2026 provides further construction.

Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) Defense — § 48‑1108(1) Nebraska law expressly recognizes a BFOQ defense for employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations. It states that it is not an unlawful employment practice to employ or refer individuals on the basis of religion, sex, disability, marital status, national origin, or military/veteran status when that characteristic “is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” The BFOQ defense is never available for race or color. For sex and other listed traits, BFOQ is strictly construed—typically allowed only when required for authenticity (e.g., actors), privacy (e.g., attendants in a gendered restroom), or safety, not based on stereotypes or customer preference. Nebraska’s statute tracks the federal Title VII framework, but it also specifically lists additional traits (e.g., marital status, veteran status) for BFOQ.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1103 Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1108

Nebraska’s Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA) allows employees to pursue relief for workplace discrimination under state law, but the statute does not expressly require complainants to choose between FEPA and federal remedies (such as those available under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act). The FEPA savings clause, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1125, provides that nothing in the act “shall be construed to repeal any other law of this state or of any municipality thereof relating to discrimination.” This non-preemption language preserves the right to pursue available federal claims arising from the same facts.

FEPA does not by its own terms bar dual filing or require an election of remedies. However, the statute is silent on whether claimants may “stack” monetary remedies (such as back pay or punitive damages) when pursuing claims in both state court (under FEPA) and federal court (under Title VII) for the same incident of discrimination. No Nebraska statute expressly addresses double recovery or the mechanics of claim and damage coordination; courts typically bar double recovery for the same harm under general principles of law, but Nebraska authority does not explicitly codify this for FEPA/Title VII overlap.

Nebraska law does authorize an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in district court for a FEPA claim (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1120), separate from any fees that may be awarded in federal proceedings. Nebraska FEPA also specifically contemplates that, when required to effectuate federal rights, damages or relief available under federal law must also be available under FEPA (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1119(6)).

With respect to dual or cross-filing: while the NEOC and EEOC frequently coordinate charge intake, FEPA does not specify administrative sequencing or restrict a complainant’s right to pursue both state and federal remedies. Where FEPA is silent, federal rules and coordination procedures generally govern. The NEOC’s own materials confirm that the agency investigates discrimination under both state and federal law, but no statute explicitly governs the detailed interplay of filings for the same facts in Nebraska.

In summary: FEPA preserves federal remedies; does not expressly limit damages or attorney’s fees available under federal law; and does not expressly codify how, or if, monetary remedies are coordinated or “stacked” across concurrent FEPA and Title VII actions. Where Nebraska authority is silent, practitioners must rely on general legal principles and EEOC/NEOC administrative guidance.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1125 Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1120 Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1119(6)

Nebraska law explicitly prohibits retaliation against employees and applicants who take certain protected actions in the workplace. Under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA), it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual because that person (a) opposed any practice made unlawful by FEPA, (b) made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act, or (c) discussed, disclosed, or compared wage information with others (with certain limited exceptions). This anti-retaliation sweep appears at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114(1), which tracks the structure of federal Title VII's retaliation provision but is independently enforceable before the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC).

Covered protected activities include both formal and informal opposition to employment practices prohibited by FEPA—such as making an internal complaint about discrimination, filing a charge with the NEOC, participating as a witness or complainant, or taking part in mediation or hearings.

Protections also extend to discussions or disclosures of wages, benefits, or other compensation information, as detailed in § 48‑1114(1)(d), subject to a narrow exception for employees whose essential job functions give them access to that information and who do not act in furtherance of a complaint or investigation.

A charge alleging retaliation (whether alone or in connection with other FEPA-protected traits) must be filed with the NEOC within 300 days of the alleged retaliatory act. The NEOC, like the EEOC at the federal level, investigates and enforces these protections.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114 Source: NEOC — Employment Discrimination Overview

Nebraska prohibits age discrimination in employment under the Nebraska Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), found at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1001 et seq. This law operates independently of the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act, covering a different and sometimes broader set of employers, but with a different employee-count threshold and focusing on employees "forty years of age or over."

Who is protected?

• The protected group under the Nebraska Age Discrimination in Employment Act is individuals who are age 40 or older (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1003(1)). There is no upper age limit, but individuals under 40 are not covered by this statute.

Employer-size threshold:

• The Act covers private employers (including nonprofits) with 20 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, paralleling the federal ADEA's threshold (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1002(2)).
• State government agencies, political subdivisions, and municipalities are covered regardless of number of employees (i.e., there is no minimum threshold for public employers).

Administrative filing deadline:

• A charge alleging age discrimination must be filed with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, matching the federal window under the ADEA (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1006(4)). The NEOC investigates, and complainants may ultimately seek court relief after administrative steps.

Practical notes:

• Nebraska’s age discrimination law is distinct from its main FEPA; practitioners should cite the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for age-based claims, not FEPA.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1002 Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1003 Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1006

Nebraska’s Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA) strictly prohibits employers from retaliating against individuals who engage in certain protected activities. The source of this protection is Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114, which establishes it as an unlawful employment practice for any employer to "discriminate against any of his or her employees or applicants for employment" because the individual has:

1. Opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by FEPA. This covers both formal complaints to management or HR and informal expressions of opposition to discrimination in the workplace.
2. Filed a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under FEPA. This prong extends to anyone who files a complaint with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC), participates as a witness, supplies documents, or otherwise takes part in the enforcement process.
3. Discussed, disclosed, or compared wage, benefit, or other compensation information with others (with a carve-out for employees who have access to that data as part of their job duties, unless acting to further a complaint or investigation). This statutory language was added to address wage transparency—protecting employees who talk about their pay, as long as the discussion is not part of their essential business function.

The anti-retaliation provision tracks Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act in both language and scope, but is enforceable independently under state law—meaning a claim may be made under Nebraska law even if federal rights are not implicated.

Retaliation complaints must be filed with the NEOC within 300 days of the alleged retaliatory action (see § 48-1118 for deadlines). Covered remedies include cease-and-desist orders, reinstatement, and other equitable relief, but the text of FEPA does not enumerate punitive or compensatory damages.

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1114

The Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (FEPA) gives successful complainants a range of equitable remedies, but the statute is notably silent on traditional monetary damage awards (like compensatory or punitive damages) and on attorney’s fees. The primary authority for FEPA’s remedies is Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1119, which governs both Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) administrative proceedings and direct actions in district court.

Equitable and affirmative relief: When a violation is found, either the NEOC or the district court is empowered to order “such action as will effectuate the purposes” of FEPA. This language allows the agency or court to issue cease-and-desist (injunctive) orders, require reinstatement or hiring, order the extension of benefits, and mandate other affirmative steps necessary to restore the victim. The express authority for this is Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1119(2) (for NEOC) and § 48-1119(4) (for court proceedings).

Back pay and front pay: While the statute does not explicitly use the terms “back pay” or “front pay,” courts interpreting similar “effectuate the purposes” language (including in Nebraska) have generally held that back pay is available as an element of make-whole relief. The Nebraska Supreme Court in Miller v. Westfield, 236 Neb. 286 (1990), approved reinstatement and back pay as appropriate FEPA remedies. Front pay is less certain but may be available as an alternative to reinstatement when reinstatement is not possible.

Compensatory and punitive damages: FEPA does NOT expressly authorize compensatory damages for pain, suffering, or emotional distress, nor does it authorize punitive damages—unlike federal Title VII after the 1991 amendments. The Nebraska Supreme Court has recognized that FEPA is limited to equitable relief (Miller v. Westfield, above).

Attorney’s fees and costs: FEPA does not expressly provide for recovery of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Unless another basis in statute or court rule applies, parties generally bear their own legal costs in FEPA actions.

Summary:

• Available relief: reinstatement, hiring, extension of benefits, back pay, injunctive orders, other equitable relief
• Not available (absent legislative amendment): compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees

Source: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1119 Source: Miller v. Westfield, 236 Neb. 286 (1990)