Knapp v. Ruser, 297 Neb. 639

Background

Patricia Knapp was a longtime part‑time then full‑time supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska College of Law civil clinical program; she alleged pay and promotion disparities after a male clinic professor was hired at a higher salary.
Knapp complained to her supervisor (Ruser) and the dean about alleged gender‑based inequities and clinic management; after a heated conversation with Ruser she alleges his treatment toward her worsened and she resigned May 31, 2013.
Knapp filed suit asserting federal and state claims; the federal district court dismissed federal claims and remanded four state‑law claims (fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth) to state court.
On remand the Lancaster County District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the four state claims: (4) wage discrimination under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48‑1221(1); (5) sex discrimination under the NFEPA (§ 48‑1104); (7) retaliation under the NFEPA (§ 48‑1114); and (9) public‑policy retaliation.
The state court applied McDonnell Douglas framework and federal analogues (Title VII and EPA) and held Knapp failed to establish prima facie showings (no similarly situated male comparators for discrimination/equal‑pay claims; no materially adverse action for retaliation/public‑policy claims).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Knapp proved sex discrimination under NFEPA (failure to hire/classification)	Knapp argued the clinic’s staffing and promotion practices constituted impermissible classification and disparate treatment that disadvantaged women	Defendants argued comparators were not similarly situated; Knapp never applied for tenure‑track positions and her duties differed materially	Court: No prima facie showing; comparators had different duties; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Knapp proved wage discrimination under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48‑1221(1) (equal‑pay)	Knapp argued she was paid less than male clinic faculty doing comparable work	Defendants argued male faculty had substantially different/additional responsibilities (research, outreach, admin) so jobs were not substantially equal	Court: Jobs not substantially equal; Knapp failed to show prima facie equal‑pay violation; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Knapp proved retaliation under NFEPA (§ 48‑1114)	Knapp asserted she engaged in protected opposition and the resulting hostility/withdrawal by Ruser compelled her to resign	Defendants argued alleged conduct were minor slights/petty annoyances, not materially adverse actions	Court: Actions were not materially adverse or causing concrete harm; no retaliation established; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Knapp stated a public‑policy retaliatory discharge/demotion claim	Knapp urged a public‑policy exception grounded in legal‑ethics duties (clinic as de facto law firm)	Defendants argued there was no discharge, demotion, or materially adverse action invoking the limited public‑policy exception	Court: Even assuming policy concerns, no adverse employment action shown; public‑policy claim fails; summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for proving disparate treatment)
Burlington N. & S.F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)
Hunt v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021 (definition of prima facie equal‑pay showing)
Price v. Northern States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186 (EPA prima facie requirements guidance)
Trosper v. Bag ’N Save, 273 Neb. 855 (public‑policy exception to at‑will employment explained)
Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (treating NFEPA like Title VII and applying McDonnell Douglas approach)