S-23-899 and S- 23-944 Courtney Galloway (Appellant) v. Husker Auto Group, LLC (Appellee)
Appeal from the District court for Lancaster County, Judge Ryan S. Post
Attorneys: Kathleen M. Neary (Powers Law for Appellant) and Cathy S. Trent-Vilim and Eric W. Tirtilli (Lamson Dugan Murray, LLP for Appellee) and Carrie McAtee (Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP appearing pro hac vice for Appellee)
Civil: Wrongful Discharge
Proceedings below: Appellant brough a wrongful discharge action pursuant to the Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act (NFEPA), and the district court granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The district court erred in granting Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment; 2) The district court erred in finding that no genuine issued of disputed material fact existed in granting Appellee’s Summary judgment Motion; 3) The district court improperly ignored or disregarded genuine issues of disputed material facts; 4) The district court improperly weighed or otherwise decided genuine issues of disputed material fact; 5) The district court erred in failing to give the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences; 6) The district court erred in failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party; 7) The district court erred in finding that Appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; 8) The district court improperly relied upon factually distinguishable cases in determining that Appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; 9) The district court improperly determined that the illegal acts reported, opposed, and investigated by Appellant were not the acts of the employer, rather, were the acts of a co-worker; 10) The district court erred in finding that Appellant had not engaged in protected activities; 11) The district court erred in finding that Appellee did not violate the public policy of the State of Nebraska when it terminated Appellant after she engaged in numerous protected activities, including, opposing, reporting, and investigating Appellee’s falsification of government tax forms and preparation of fraudulent purchase agreements; and 12) The district court erred in concluding that Appellant had failed to establish the prima facie elements of a NFEPA whistleblower action, and a wrongful termination claim as against the public policy of the State of Nebraska, and that she had failed to prove Appellee’s proffered reasons for her termination were pretextual.