She scored “Does not Meet” on half the criteria. Then came the lawsuit
A 30-year utility worker ranked dead last for a promotion she helped create - then sued for discrimination.
On November 10, 2026, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Metropolitan Utilities District of Omaha (MUD), finding no evidence the hiring decision was pretextual.
The worker had been with MUD since January 1990. She held a QA supervisor title in customer service from September 2010. When MUD decided in late 2022 to merge quality assurance and training under one new supervisor role, her position would report to whoever filled it.
She was told about the restructure, invited to apply, and informed her title would change but her duties and salary would not.
She applied. So did 26 others.
MUD interviewed six candidates - four women and two men - using a standardized scoring form developed before any applications arrived. Each candidate was rated across six requirements, including training experience, data analysis skills, and knowledge of process improvement methods like Lean Six Sigma.
The worker scored “Does not Meet” on three of six requirements. She ranked sixth out of six.
The top-ranked candidate was an external woman who met or exceeded every requirement. She accepted, then withdrew. The role went to the second-ranked candidate, a 39-year-old white male who scored “Exceeds” on three requirements and “Meets” on the other three.
The worker filed a discrimination complaint in January 2024, alleging MUD discriminated on the basis of gender, race, and age. On appeal, she focused solely on gender.
The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test - the standard framework in US employment discrimination cases. The employer must first offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If it does, the employee must then show that reason was really a cover for discrimination.
MUD’s documented scoring cleared the first hurdle. The burden shifted.
The worker argued she was more qualified: longer tenure, 12 years in QA, strong performance history. She contended the job requirements were “tailored” to the successful candidate and that the job description “was done for the very purpose of justifying the hiring of the younger, white, male for the position,” as the court quoted from her brief.
The court found no evidence for those claims. The job description was finalized on October 27, 2022, and interview questions were drafted November 9 - both before applications opened. Four of six interviewees were women. The highest-ranked candidate was a woman.
One distinction carried particular weight. The worker argued her coaching experience should count as training experience. MUD’s director of customer service explained in an affidavit that coaching employees on processes is not the same as developing and delivering training programs - which the successful candidate had done at a previous employer.
The court also upheld the reclassification of the worker’s title and pay grade, noting a 2015 company-wide salary review had already flagged the position as overgraded. Her actual pay never decreased.
For HR teams designing promotion processes, the takeaway is structural: standardized criteria set before applications open, consistent scoring, and documented reasons that hold up when tested years later.
The decision is final. The district court’s summary judgment in favor of MUD was affirmed.
