A-25-0477, Reymita Walls (Appellant/Cross-appellee) v. Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha (Appellee/Cross-appellant)
District Court for Douglas County, Judge Tress M. Alioth
Attorney for Appellant/Cross-appellee: Joy Shiffermiller (Shiffermiller Law Office, P.C., L.L.O.)
Attorney for Appellee/Cross-appellant: Justin Cooper and Marc Willis (Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha)
Civil: Employment discrimination; summary judgment
Facts:
Walls is a 66-year-old Black/Latina woman who has worked for Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha (MUD) since 1990. In 2023, she applied for a newly created position. She was one of six candidates interviewed and MUD determined that she did not meet expectations in three of six main areas. She was ranked sixth out of the six candidates. The top candidate was a female, who was offered and accepted the job, but later declined. The candidate who was ranked second highest was a 39 year-old, white male, and he accepted the job.
Prior to the new position being posted and Walls applying, MUD informed her that her current position would report to the new position and as a result, the job title of her current position would change. The pay grade would also change for other reasons stated by MUD, but Walls’ pay would remain the same as long as she was in that position.
Walls filed a complaint against MUD alleging that it discriminated against her during the course of her employment on the basis of her age, race, and gender, by failing to promote her to the new position, changing her job title and reclassifying the pay grade of her position, and failing to provide her with professional development opportunities. MUD filed a motion for summary judgment.
At the summary judgment hearing, MUD objected to Exhibit 7 (an affidavit from Walls’ attorney with attachments). The district court overruled the objection but determined that any portion of Exhibit 7 that failed to comply with the rules of evidence would be disregarded. (T108)
Following the hearing, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of MUD finding there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether MUD’s stated reasons for not hiring Walls for the new position and for changing her job title and pay grade were pretexts for discrimination. It also found Walls received training and development opportunities consistent with all employees and Walls failed to meet her burden to produce evidence to prevent judgment as a matter of law.
Issues on Appeal:
Walls alleges the trial court erred: 1) in not explaining what evidence in Exhibit 7 it was disregarding, 2) in finding that no genuine issue a material fact exists, 3) in not viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party; 4) in failing to find that there is a factual dispute whether MUD’s actions violated Wall’s right to be free from discrimination based on her race, gender, and/or age; and 5) in determining that there was no evidence that MUD’s articulated reason for hiring the younger, white, and male candidate was a pretext for discrimination.
On cross-appeal, MUD alleges the trial court erred: 1) when it failed to determine Walls was unqualified for the new position; and 2) when it failed to determine that the change to Wall’s job title was not a demotion.