Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal

DEPT. OF JUSTICE

STATE OF NEBRASKA

OFFICIAL

MAY O 7 2026

NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Opinion No. 26-003- May 7, 2026

MICHAEL T. HILGERS

OPINION FOR SENATOR BALLARD AND

SENATOR RAYBOULD

Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal

Summary: A city charter is subordinate to the Constitution and laws of statewide concern. Any ordinance passed by a city is thus void if it (1) is inconsistent with state law, and (2) regulates or otherwise interferes with a matter of statewide concern. The City of Lincoln's proposed local minimum wage would conflict with state minimum wage law, which is a matter of statewide concern. The City thus lacks authority to impose a local minimum wage. You have asked for an Attorney General opinion

regarding the lawfulness of a proposal the Lincoln City Council is considering that would amend the Lincoln City Charter to adopt a municipal minimum wage (the "Local Wage Proposal"). ¹Specifically, you ask-for the purpose of crafting legislation Senator Ballard intends to introduce next legislative session-whether the Local Wage Proposal conflicts with state law and what measures would be necessary to ensure statewide uniformity in the minimum wage. We conclude the Local Wage Proposal would impermissibly conflict with a law addressing a matter of statewide concern. Accordingly, because the Local Wage Proposal, if enacted, is likely invalid, no new legislative action is necessary to ensure statewide uniformity. Under authority of the Nebraska Constitution, the City of Lincoln has adopted a home rule charter, which

1 See Attachment A.

1

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026) gives it authority to regulate local matters even if the Legislature has not expressly delegated authority to regulate them. But home rule charters a1·e still subject to state law, meaning a home-rule ordinance is invalid if it (1) is inconsistent with state law (2) with respect to a matter of statewide concern. The Local Wage Proposal is inconsistent with state law because the Legislature has already comprehensively regulated minimum wage under the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act (the "Wage Act" or the

"Act"). The Legislature intended for the Act to create a single statewide minimum wage. The Local Wage Proposal thus regulates a matter of statewide concern. If passed, the Proposal would affect labor markets, prices, and hiring practices beyond Lincoln's borders. We thus find the Local Wage Proposal likely to be invalid under state law. Section I of our opinion provides the relevant constitutional background. Section II contrasts Lincoln's Local Wage Proposal with the State's Wage Act. Section III outlines the legal standard for determining whether the Local Wage Proposal would be valid under state law. Section IV applies the relevant legal standard to the Local Wage Proposal, and Section V summarizes our opinion.

I.

We start with a constitutional background of state and municipal authority. When the United States authorized Nebraska to "form for themselves a constitution and state government,"²and eventually admitted Nebraska into the Union, ³the United States recognized the sovereignty of the State of Nebraska. The United States did not give the City of Lincoln or other municipalities a

2

Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal slice of that sovereignty. Municipalities are "creature[s] of the Legislature," Pro. Firefighters of Omaha v. City of Omaha, 243 Neb. 166, 17 4 (1993), and are thus entirely subject to the State-they may exercise only those powers the State gives them. Johnson v. Vill. of Polk, 319 Neb. 352, 361 (2025); Obitz v. Airport Auth. of City of Red Cloud, 181 Neb. 410, 418 (1967).

Nebraska has delegated authority to municipalities over certain matters. The State Constitution gives cities with a population of more than 5,000 inhabitants authority to frame a charter creating a municipal government. Neb. Const. art. XI, § 2. But municipal governments are generally limited in authority. Municipal governments can exercise only those powers expressly granted to them by the Legislature, or those powers necessary or implied within an express power, or powers indispensable to the purposes of the municipality. Johnson, 319 Neb. at 361 (citing Dawson County v. Clark, 58 Neb. 756, 762 (1899)). In 1920, the People of Nebraska passed a constitutional amendment that gave larger cities more authority over local affairs. The amendment permitted cities of over 100,000 people to adopt a "home rule charter"

by a majority vote of the qualified electors of such city. Neb. Const. art. XI, § 5. A "home rule charter" "render[s] cities independent of state legislation as to all subjects of strictly municipal concern." State ex rel. Martin v. Cunningham,

158 Neb. 708, 710 (1954). In other words, home rule charters can regulate local matters even without express authority from the Legislature. But home rule charters are not without limits. Home rule charters are ultimately

"subject to the Constitution and laws of the State." Neb. Const. art. XI, § 5.

3

...

l •

" -..

,.

,\

...

•' I '

3

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026) The City of Lincoln has adopted a home rule charter. ⁴

II.

The Local Wage Proposal would amend Lincoln's home rule charter to create a municipal minimum wage. The Local Wage Proposal sets an initial minimum wage at the same rate as the State's-$15 per hour through December 31, 2026. Local Wage Proposal § 3. But the Proposal differs from the Wage Act in two significant ways-the inflation adjustment percentage and the youth m1mmum wage.

The Local Wage Proposal would annually increase Lincoln's minimum wage in proportion to cost-of-living as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor's August-to- August consumer price index ("CPI").⁵Local Wage Proposal§ 3. For reference, CPI increased by 2.8% in the twelve months ending in August 2025,⁶2.6% for August 2024, ⁷and 3.4% for August 2023.⁸For 2026, CPI is

4 The full charter is available online at https://tinyurl. com/msr9xce3.

5 Specifically for urban consumers (CPI-U) for the Midwest Region. Local Wage Proposal§ 3. The local minimum wage would also be rounded up to the nearest $.05 benchmark. Id.

6 Consumer Price Index, Midwest Region -August 2025, U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stats. (Sept. 11, 2025), https://perma.cc/M723-MS2B.

7 Consumer Price Index, Midwest Region -August 2024, U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stats. (Sept. 11, 2024), https://perma.ccNE8D-Q53F.

s Consumer Price Index, Midwest Region -August 2023, U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stats. (Sept. 13, 2023), https://perma.cc/CED8-HRJR.

4

Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal increasing at around 3%.⁹At that rate, under the Local Wage Proposal, Lincoln's minimum wage for 2027 would be $15.45 per hour.

The statewide Wage Act previously used the same inflation percentage. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1203(2) (Cum. Supp. 2024). But under L.B. 258, passed in the most recent legislative session, the Act's inflation percentage will be a fixed annual rate of 1. 75%. L.B. 258. § 1, 109th Leg., 2d Sess. (2026) (enacted). Under this formula, the 2027 statewide minimum wage will be $15.26, nearly $0.20 less per hour than what it is estimated to be under the Local Wage Proposal.

The Local Wage Proposal also sets out a different standard than the Wage Act for paying minors. The Act, as amended by L.B. 258, provides that "an employer may pay a youth ((14-16 years old)] a minimum wage of thirteen dollars and fifty cents per hour." L.B. 258 § 1. The Local Wage Proposal provides no similar exception-youth are paid at the standard minimum wage. ¹⁰

We next turn to the standard for determining whether the Local Wage Proposal's differences with state law would render it invalid.

III.

As discussed, the Constitution gives home rule cities like Lincoln authority to govern their own affairs, including on matters not expressly delegated to them by the Legislature. But home rule charters remain "subject to

5

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026) the Constitution and laws of the State." Neb. Const. art.

XI, § 5. So a home-rule ordinance that "is repugnant to, or inconsistent with" state law is invalid. State u. Albarenga,

313 Neb. 72, 83 (2022). The Nebraska Supreme Court has adopted a two- part inquiry to determine whether a home-rule ordinance meets this standard and is therefore preempted. The first part asks whether the ordinance is actually "inconsistent with□ State law." Id. The central question is whether the home rule charter has created "a conflict of authority" with state law. Axberg u. City of Lincoln, 141 Neb. 55, 58 (1942). If it has, the Court then determines whether the conflict is over a matter of "state-wide concern" or only "local municipal concern." Cunningham, 158 Neb. at 710. A state statute prevails over a conflicting home rule charter on matters of "state-wide concern." Id. But a home rule charter prevails over a conflicting state statute with respect to matters of "municipal concern." Id. Thus, the Local Wage Proposal would be invalid if it (1) is inconsistent with state law and (2) regulates a matter of statewide concern. See Albarenga, 313 Neb. at 84.

IV.

Applying this standard, we conclude that the Local Wage Proposal would likely violate state law. We find that the Local Wage Proposal (1) is inconsistent with the State's minimum wage statutes and (2) regulates a matter of statewide concern.

A.

The first inquiry is whether Lincoln's mm1IDum wage would be inconsistent with state law-particularly,

6

Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal the Wage Act. See Neb. Rev. Stat.§§ 48-1201 to -1209. We find would be.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has recognized three ways (borrowed from federal preemption jurisprudence) that a municipal law can be inconsistent with state law: (1) express preemption, (2) field preemption, and (3) conflict preemption. Albarenga, 313 Neb. at 84 (2022). Express preemption occurs where a state statute explicitly states that it preempts any municipal law on the same subject matter. We have found no such provision under state law with respect to minimum wage. ¹¹Thus, we turn our attention to the latter two categories-field preemption and conflict preemption.

1.

We find the Local Wage Proposal is field preempted by state law. Field preemption occurs when the Legislature has passed "a comprehensive scheme of legislation" such that it can be "inferred" that the legislature intended it to preempt local laws. Hauptman, O'Brien, Wolf & Lathrop, P.C. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 310 Neb. 147, 154 (2021). The Legislature has provided such a comprehensive wage scheme in the Wage Act.

The Wage Act enshrines the Legislature's holistic judgment about how to structure wages across the State. It sets a general minimum wage "at levels consistent with

7

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026) [workers'] health, efficiency and general well-being." Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1201 (Reissue 2021). The Act also provides targeted exemptions-including for agricultural employees, babysitters, and apprentices-and sets a lower rate for minors, tipped employees, and student-learners. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-1202, 1203. It also requires employers to post notices of employees' wage rights and creates enforcement mechanisms. Id. §§ 48-1205, -1206. The Nebraska Supreme Court has held a home-rule ordinance invalid in the face of a similarly comprehensive state statute. In City of Omaha Hum. Rels. Dep't ex rel. Guy

v. City Wide Rock & Excavating Co., 201 Neb. 405, 408 (1978), the Court held that the Nebraska Fair Employment Act preempted Omaha's fair employment practices ordinance because the state law was "a comprehensive law" on the same subject matter. The Fair Employment Act is similar in scope to the Wage Act. Both set out a general purpose, compare Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1101.01 with id. § 48-1201, have discreet definitions, compare id. § 48-1102, with id. § 48-1202, regulate employment conditions, compare id. § 48-1104, with id. § 48-1203(1), provide exceptions, compare id. §§ 48-1102, ll03, with id. § 48- 1203(3), (4), and L.B. 258 § 1, supra, and create enforcement mechanisms, compare id. § 48-1116-19, with id. § 48-1206. The Court in City Wide Rock concluded that the Legislature's scheme left no room for municipalities to adopt their own labor regulations. 201 Neb at 408; accord Midwest Emps. Council, Inc. v. City of Omaha, 177 Neb. 877, 887 (1964); see also Op. Att'y Gen. No. 12-009, 2012 WL 1649760 (May 3, 2012) (opining that municipalities cannot expand protected classifications for purposes of the Fair Employment Practices Act). So too here-the Wage Act is comprehensive and was not intended to leave room for municipal wage laws.

Legislative history supports that the Legislature did not intend for municipalities to enter the minimum

8

Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal wage field. See Midwest Emps., 177 Neb. at 887 (reviewing Legislative history to analyze whether the Legislature intended state law to occupy the field of fair employment practices). Prior to the passage of L.B. 258 in this year's legislative session, Nebraska's minimum wage increased annually according to the CPL Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1203(2) (Cum. Supp. 2024). L.B. 258 amended that provision to create a fixed 1. 75% rate. L.B. 258 § 1. When Senator Raybould introduced L.B. 258, she explained that the intention of the fixed rate was "to provide certainty to businesses across the state who are 1·equired to comply with this mandate." Transcript, L.B. 258, Business and Labor Committee, 109th Leg., 1st Sess. 58 (Feb. 24, 2025). The bill was meant to avoid "larger than expected increases to the minimum wage rates" that create "extreme impacts on employers," as happened in other states "with wages tied to CPI increases." Id. at 59.

Just before the bill crossed the finish line, Senator Raybould again explained on the floor that she intended the bill to replace the fluctuating CPI inflation percentage with "something that is fixed and predictable." Floor Debate, L.B. 258, 109th Leg., 2d Sess. 3 (Feb. 5, 2026). She explained that it was important for businesses "to be able to predict ... who they can hire and how many they can hire." Id. Senator Hansen explained the bill's modest inflation percentage would protect low-skill jobs: "[A] high minimum wage law is, in reality, a law that requires employers to discriminate against workers with low skills."

Id. at 26. And Senator Clouse explained that the youth minim um wage gave small businesses "room for options" to

"help them create ... jobs instead of than killing the jobs."

Id. at 24.

Similar comments from the Legislative history abound. But the import is clear: The Legislature created the fixed growth percentage and youth minimum wage to give employers predictability and to protect jobs for minors

9

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026) and low-skill workers. The Local Wage Proposal would frustrate these purposes by reverting Lincoln to a variable inflation rate and by eliminating the youth minimum wage.

It may be suggested that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1208 (Reissue 2021) shows that the Legislature did not intend to occupy the field of minimum wage. That statute provides that "[any] standards relating to minimum wage ... in effect on October 23, 1967, by or under any other law ofthis state, which are more favorable to employees than those applicable to such employees under the [Wage Act], .... shall continue in full force and effect." But that statute protected only laws in effect in 1967 when the Wage Act was passed. The Legislature was aware of those laws and did not intend to upend them. The Legislature could have applied the same protection to any law-including those later in time-that set a higher minimum wage than the Act. It did not. Further, the protection applies only to wages set by "other laws of this state." While municipal ordinances are no doubt laws "within" the State, they are not necessarily laws "of' the State. And when the Legislature intends to include "municipal ordinances"

within a statute's ambit, it expressly includes them. See, e.g., Neb. Rev. Stat.§ 48-1124 (Reissue 2021); id.§ 74-594 (Reissue 2018). The Legislature simply did not authorize municipalities to replace the minimum wage set by the Act. In sum, we find that the Legislature intended the comprehensive Wage Act to occupy the field of minimum wage law in Nebraska.

3.

We also find that at least part of the Local Wage Proposal-and perhaps all of it-is conflict preempted by state law. Conflict preemption occurs when "a local law actually conflicts with state law." Hauptman, 310 Neb. at

10

Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal

154. "[T]he fact that a local law is more stringent than state law does not by itself lead to conflict preemption." Butler Cnty. Dairy, L.L.C. v. Butler Cnty., 285 Neb. 408, 436 (2013). Thus, "where both an ordinance and a statute are prohibitory and the only difference between them is that the ordinance goes further in its prohibition," there is no conflict. Id. On the other hand, when state law is not merely prohibitory, but instead blesses a particular practice, a municipality cannot "forbid what the legislature has expressly licensed, authorized, or required." Butler Cnty. Dairy, 285 Neb. at 436--37 (quoting Phelps, Inc. v. City of Hastings, 152 Neb. 651, 657 (1950)); accord Johnson, 319 Neb. at 366-67.

In at least one respect, the Local Wage Proposal forbids what state law blesses. The Local Wage Proposal does not provide a youth minimum wage. Employers must pay teenagers the same rate they pay adults. The Wage Act, on the other hand, now expressly authorizes employers to pay 14-16 year-olds a lower minimum wage:

"[A]n employer may pay a youth minimum wage of [$13.50]." L.B. 258 § 1 (emphasis added). But paying a 15- year-old $13.50 per hour would violate the Local Wage Proposal. The Local Wage Proposal thus forbids what the Wage Act expressly authorizes.

We also think that it is an open question whether the Local Wage Proposal's general minimum wage is conflict preempted by the Wage Act. The plain text of the Wage Act is affirmative, not prohibitive. It provides that employers "shall pay ... a minimum wage." Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1203(2). Of course, the implied flip side is that an employer "shall not" pay less than the minimum wage. But the statute's affirmative phrasing is arguably an express authorization for employers to pay at the minimum wage. See Ky. Restaurant Ass'n v. Louisville/ Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov., 501 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Ky. 2016) (holding a similarly worded Kentucky statute granted express

11

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026) authority to pay the state minimum wage and local ordinance setting a higher minimum wage was invalid because it "prohibits what the [state] statute expressly permits"); Wholesale Laundry Bd. of Trade, Inc. v. City of New York, 17 A.D.2d 327, 329 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 1963) (invalidating local minimum wage because it "forbids a hiring at a wage which the state law permits and so prohibits what the state law allows" and noting that

"[s]emantic exercises in this connection cannot change the concept"). In other words, by saying "you must pay at least X," the statute is (at least arguably) expressing that "you are authorized to pay X." See id.

The expressed purpose of the Wage Act supports this interpretation. The purpose of the Act is not only "to establish a minimum wage for all workers," but also "to safeguard existing minimum wage compensation standards which are adequate to maintain the health, efficiency and general well-being of workers." Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1201 (emphasis added). By establishing a minimum wage, the Legislature determined the rate that was "adequate to maintain the health, efficiency and general well-being of workers." Thus, the Local Wage Proposal may directly conflict with state law when it forbids employers from paying a rate the Legislature determined to be "adequate to maintain the health, efficiency and general well-being of workers."

4.

In sum, we find that the Local Wage Proposal is field preempted by the Wage Act because the Legislature intended the Act to occupy the field of minimum wage. That finding alone is sufficient to find the Local Wage Proposal is inconsistent with state law. But we also find the Local Wage Proposal's youth minimum wage (or lack thereof) is conflict preempted by the Act. The Proposal's

12

Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal general minimum wage may also be conflict preempted by the Act. The Proposal is thus inconsistent with state law.

B.

The next inquiry is whether the minimum wage is a "matter of statewide concern." Even if the Local Wage Proposal is inconsistent with state law, it is still valid if it governs a matter of only municipal concern and not statewide concern. Seep. 6, supra. A law regulates a matter of statewide concern when it "involv[es] a public need or policy" affecting "the people of the state." Omaha Parking Auth. u. City of Omaha, 163 Neb. 97, 104 (1956). We are confident that the appropriate minimum wage is a matter of statewide concern.

The Nebraska Supreme Court has already twice held that "labor relations and practices" or "fair employment practices" "are matters of statewide concern and not of purely local concern." City Wide Rock, 201 Neb. at 408; Mw. Emps. Council, 177 Neb. at 886. Thus, Omaha ordinances that attempted to regulate fair employment practices were invalid. See City Wide Rock, 201 Neb. at 408; Midwest Emps. Council, 177 Neb. at 886; see also Op. Att'y Gen. No. 12-009 (opining that municipalities cannot expand protected classifications for purposes of the Fair Employment Practices Act). The minimum wage falls within the same field as "labor relations and practices" and

"fair employment practices." Like other laws regulating fair employment practices, a minimum wage "is designed to address a statewide concern for the health and welfare of workers." Marquez u. City of Long Beach, 32 Cal.App.5th 552, 567 (2019); see also id. at 570-73. ¹²

13

Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-003 (May 7, 2026) The Court has also held that laws regulating traffic signals, street congestion, eminent domain procedures, gambling, and education are all matters of statewide concern. Albarenga, 313 Neb. at 84; Van Patten v. City of Omaha, 167 Neb. 741, 747-48 (1959); Omaha Parking Auth., 163 Neb. at 98; State ex rel. Hunter v. The Araho,

137 Neb. 389, 400 (1940); Carlberg v. Metcalf, 120 Neb. 481, 488 (1930). Each of those subjects is arguably more locally concerned than the minimum wage. At bottom, there can be little doubt that a minimum wage is not a purely municipal concern. The effects of the Local Wage Proposal would no doubt spill beyond Lincoln's borders. Competitors in nearby labor markets will have to compete for labor with elevated Lincoln wages. The prices of goods and services originating in Lincoln but consumed elsewhere in the State will rise as labor costs rise. And businesses that operate in both Lincoln and other cities will be forced to reconsider their compensation policies across markets. The tendrils of Lincoln's minimum wage than state mlillmum wage, relying on city charter's express authorization to set wage rate for its workers, was unlawful because minimum wage law was a matter of statewide concern), and Ky. Restaurant, 501 S.W.3d at 430 (higher local minimum wage preempted); with Coop. Home Care, Inc. v. City of St. Louis,

514 S.W.3d 571, 583-87 (Mo. 2017) (wage ordinance not preempted by state minimum wage law), and Visiting Homemaker Serv. v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 883 A.2d 1074, 1080 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005) (statutory amendment specifically authorizing higher local minimum wage overcame preemption argument). Critically, the outcome in these cases was heavily dependent on the language of that state's constitution and the relevant minimum wage statutes, as well as the state's history with respect to municipal authority. Thus, we find Nebraska caselaw far more salient to answering the question posed.

14

Lawfulness of Local Minimum Wage Proposal would radiate across the State. The minimum wage is thus a matter of statewide concern.

V.

Given that the Local Wage Proposal is inconsistent with state law under both field preemption and conflict preemption, and because that the Proposal regulates a matter of statewide concern, we conclude that the Local Wage Proposal, if enacted, would be preempted by the Wage Act and thus be invalid and unenforceable.

MICHAEL T. HILGERS

Attorney General of Nebraska

15

Attachment A (Local Wage Proposal)

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

26-41 Introduce: 04-27-26 ORDINANCE NO. --------

AN ORDINANCE amending Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code relating to Public Peace and Welfare by creating a new Chapter 9.80 entitled "Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance"

to adopt a minimum wage ordinance.

BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Lincoln, Nebraska:

Section 1. That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section numbered 9.80.010 to read as follows:

7 9.80.010 Purpose and Title.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

a. This Chapter shall be known as the "Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance."

b. The City of Lincoln declares the purpose of this ordinance is to establish a minimum wage for all workers at levels consistent with their health, efficiency and general well-being. and to safeguard existing minimum wage compensation standards which are adequate to maintain the health, efficiency and general well-being of workers against the unfair competition of wage standards that do not provide adequate standards of living.

Section 2. That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section numbered 9.80.020 to read as follows:

9.80.020 Definitions.

For purposes of the Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires:

Employ shall include to permit to work.

Employer shall include any individual, partnership, limited liability company, association, corporation, business trust. legal representative, or organized group of persons employing four or

1 more employees at any one time except for seasonal employment of not more than twenty weeks 2 in any calendar year, acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an 3 employee, but shall not include the United States, the state, or any political subdivision thereof.

4 Employee shall include any individual employed by any employer but does not include:

5 1. Any individual employed in agriculture;

6 2. Any individual employed as a baby-sitter in or about a private home; 7 3. Any individual employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity or 8 as a superintendent or supervisor;

9 4. Any individual employed by the United States or by the state or any political subdivision 10 thereof, including any individual incarcerated in any correctional facility; 11 5. Any individual engaged in the activities of an educational, charitable. religious, or nonprofit 12 organization when the employer-employee relationship does not in fact exist or when the 13 services rendered to such organization are on a voluntary basis;

14 6. Apprentices and learners otherwise provided by law;

15 7. Veterans in training under supervision of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; 16 8. A child in the employment of his or her parent or a parent in the employment of his or her 17 child; or

18 9. Any person who, directly or indirectlv, is receiving any form of federal, state, county, or local 19 aid or welfare and who is physically or mentally disabled and employed in a program of 20 rehabilitation. who shall receive a wage at a level consistent with his or her health, efficiency, 21 and general well-being.

22 Wages shall mean all remuneration for personal services, including commissions and bonuses 23 and the cash value of all remunerations in any medium other than cash.

2

Section 3. That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new 2 section numbered 9.80.030 to read as follows:

3 9.80.030 Wage; Minimum Rate; Adjustments.

4 a. Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer shall pay to each of his or her 5 employees, without regard to the age of the employee, a minimum wage of fifteen dollars 6 ($15.00) per hour on the Effective Date through December 31, 2026. 7 b. The minimum wage established in subsection (a) of this section shall be increased on January 8 1, 2027, and on January 1 of successive years, by the increase in the cost of living. The increase 9 in the cost of living shall be measured by the percentage increase, if any, as of August of the 10 previous year over the level as of August of the year preceding that year in the consumer price 11 index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) for the Midwest Region, or its successor index, as 12 published by the U.S. Department of Labor, or its successor agency. with the amount of the 13 minimum wage increase rounded up to the nearest multiple of five cents. No later than October 14 15 of each year, commencing October 15, 2026, the Finance Director. or their designee, shall 15 calculate and publish the minimum wage rate that will take effect the following January l. 16 c. For persons compensated by way of gratuities such as waitresses, waiters, hotel bellhops, 17 porters, and shoeshine persons, the employer shall pay wages at the minimum rate of two dollars 18 and thirteen cents ($? .13) per hour, plus all gratuities given to them for services rendered. The 19 sum of wages and gratuities received by each person compensated by way of gratuities shall 20 equal or exceed the applicable minimum wage rate provided in subsection (a) or (b) of this 21 section. In determining whether or not the individual is compensated by way of gratuities, the 22 burden of proof shall be upon the employer.

3

1 d. Any employer employing student-learners as part of a bona fide vocational training program 2 shall pay such student-learners' wages at a rate of at least seventy-five percent of the minimum 3 wage rate which would otherwise be applicable under this section.

4 Section 4. That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new 5 section numbered 9.80.040 to read as follows:

6 9.80.040 Posting.

7 Every employer subject to the provisions of the Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance shall keep a 8 summary of the Ordinance. furnished by the Finance Director, or their designee, without charge, 9 posted in a conspicuous place on or about the premises wherein any person subject to the 10 provisions of such Ordinance is employed.

11 Section 5. That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new 12 section numbered 9.80.050 to read as follows:

13 9.80.050 Penalty for Violations.

14 a. Any employer subject to the provisions of the Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance who 15 violates any provision of Section 9.80.030 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction 16 thereof shall be fined in any sum not to exceed $500.00. Each day that any violation continues 17 shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.

18 b. Nothing herein shall preclude an individual from filing or pursuing a complaint with the

19 Nebraska Commissioner of Labor or from pursuing any other remedy allowed by law.

20 Section 6. That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new 21 section numbered 9.80.060 to read as follows:

4

1 9.80.060 Collective Bargaining.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to interfere with, impede or in any way diminish the right of employees to bargain collectively with their employees through representatives of their own choosing in order to establish wages or other conditions of work in excess of the applicable minimum under the provisions of the Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance and other law. Section 7. That Title 9 of the Lincoln Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section numbered 9.80.070 to read as follows:

9.80.070 Severability.

In the event that any provision of this Ordinance shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining pmtions, clauses, and phrases shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 8. That Sections 1 through 7 of this Ordinance shall be codified in the Lincoln Municipal Code as Chapter 9.80 entitled Lincoln Minimum Wage Ordinance. Section 9. That Chapter 9.80 shall go into force and effect on July 18, 2026. Section 10. This ordinance shall be published, within fifteen days after the passage 16 hereof, in one issue of a daily or weekly newspaper of general circulation in the City, or posted 17 on the official bulletin board of the City, located on the wall across from the City Clerk's office

5

26-41 Introduce: 04-27-26 ORDINANCE NO. -------

Introduced by:

Approved as to Fonn & Legality:

City Attorney

Approved this __ day of ____ ~ 2026:

Mayor

6