Knapp v. Ruser, 901 N.W.2d 31

Background

Patricia Knapp, a nontenured temporary lecturer/supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska civil clinical law program, worked half‑time for many years and was converted to full time in 2011 at an $80,000 salary.
Knapp discovered higher salaries for male faculty (including a March 2012 hire at $106,000) and raised gender‑equity concerns with Director Kevin Ruser and the dean; relations with Ruser soured and Knapp left employment May 31, 2013.
Knapp sued asserting federal and state claims (Title VII, EPA, and state counterparts, plus a public‑policy retaliation claim); the federal court dismissed the federal claims and remanded four state claims to Lancaster County district court.
On remand the state court granted summary judgment for defendants on four claims: (Fourth) wage discrimination under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48‑1221(1); (Fifth) sex discrimination under the NFEPA § 48‑1104 (failure to hire/classification); (Seventh) retaliation under NFEPA § 48‑1114; and (Ninth) public‑policy retaliation (wrongful discharge theory).
The district court concluded Knapp failed to establish prima facie proof of similarly situated male comparators for the discrimination/wage claims and failed to show an adverse, materially harmful employment action for the retaliation and public‑policy claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Knapp stated a § 48‑1104(1)/(2) sex‑discrimination claim (failure to hire / improper classification)	Knapp argued the court should treat the claim as improper classification under § 48‑1104(2) and showed males moved from nontenure into tenure positions	Defendants argued male comparators had different/additional duties and Knapp never applied for tenure‑eligible positions	Court applied McDonnell Douglas framework to § 48‑1104, found no similarly situated male comparators, and affirmed summary judgment for defendants
Whether Knapp proved wage discrimination under § 48‑1221(1) (state EPA analog)	Knapp argued male clinic faculty were paid more for same establishment work	Defendants argued comparators’ jobs were not substantially equal (additional research, admin, community service, tenure responsibilities)	Court adopted federal EPA standards, found jobs not substantially equal, and affirmed summary judgment
Whether Knapp proved retaliation under § 48‑1114 (NFEPA)	Knapp claimed protected opposition to sex discrimination; alleged Ruser’s conduct after complaint forced her to resign	Defendants contended Ruser’s conduct were petty slights/minor annoyances, not materially adverse	Applying Burlington/White standard, court held Knapp failed to show a materially adverse action and affirmed summary judgment
Whether Knapp’s public‑policy retaliation (wrongful discharge) claim met Trosper/Jackson standards	Knapp argued ethical concerns about clinic management implicate public policy and supported retaliation claim	Defendants argued no discharge, demotion, or materially adverse employment action occurred; public‑policy exception applies to discharge/demotion only	Court held public‑policy exception not triggered because no discharge/demotion or materially adverse action; affirmed summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for disparate treatment prima facie case)
Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation requires materially adverse action standard)
Hunt v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021 (Eighth Circuit on EPA substantial‑equal‑work analysis)
Price v. Northern States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186 (Eighth Circuit on EPA prima facie and burdenshift)
Knapp v. Ruser, 145 F. Supp. 3d 846 (D. Neb. 2015) (federal court decision dismissing federal claims and remanding state claims)
Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (Nebraska Supreme Court: NFEPA interpreted with Title VII guidance)
Trosper v. Bag ’N Save, 273 Neb. 855 (public‑policy exception to at‑will employment limited to clear mandates; applied to wrongful discharge/demotion)