Knapp v. Ruser
297 Neb. 639
Neb.2017Background
- Patricia Knapp was a supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska College of Law civil clinic; she worked part-time for years and went to full‑time in 2011 as a temporary lecturer (non‑tenure track).
- Knapp received an $80,000 offer for the academic year; she learned a male clinic hire received $106,000 and raised concerns about gender pay/classification disparities with Director Kevin Ruser and the dean.
- After complaining, Knapp alleges Ruser became hostile/disengaged, the clinic’s supervision suffered, and Knapp ultimately left employment on May 31, 2013.
- Knapp sued asserting federal and state claims (discrimination, equal pay, retaliation, and public‑policy retaliation); federal court dismissed the federal claims and remanded four state claims to Lancaster County: (4) wage discrimination under Nebraska law, (5) sex discrimination under NFEPA, (7) retaliation under NFEPA, and (9) public‑policy retaliation.
- The state district court granted summary judgment for defendants on those remanded claims, concluding Knapp failed to establish prima facie showings (no similarly situated comparators, no materially adverse actions), and Knapp’s motion to alter or amend was denied.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court: it applied McDonnell Douglas framework, adopted federal analogues for Nebraska statutes, and held Knapp’s evidence was insufficient on comparators and adverse action elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Knapp proved sex discrimination under the NFEPA (failure to hire / improper classification) | Knapp argued she was improperly classified and that male colleagues were moved into higher paid/tenure positions, showing discriminatory classification | Defendants argued Knapp’s role and duties differed materially from male comparators (non‑tenure lecturer vs. tenure/tenure‑track with research/service), so no similarly situated comparators | Court: Affirmed summary judgment — no similarly situated male comparators; analysis under McDonnell Douglas supports dismissal |
| Whether Knapp proved discriminatory wage practice under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48‑1221(1) (equal pay) | Knapp argued male hires in clinic paid more for comparable work | Defendants argued the male faculty had substantially different duties (research, admin, outreach, tenure duties) so jobs not "equal" or substantially similar | Court: Affirmed summary judgment — jobs were not substantially equal; Knapp failed prima facie equal‑pay showing |
| Whether Knapp proved retaliation under the NFEPA (§ 48‑1114) | Knapp argued her complaints were protected activity and Ruser’s subsequent conduct was an adverse employment action that forced her to quit | Defendants argued alleged conduct amounted to petty slights/minor annoyances, not materially adverse actions that would dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining | Court: Affirmed — conduct was not materially adverse; no concrete injury/harm to satisfy retaliation element |
| Whether Knapp stated a public‑policy retaliation claim (tort‑based retaliatory discharge/demotion) | Knapp argued raising ethical concerns about clinic supervision implicated public policy (Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct) and defendants retaliated | Defendants argued no discharge, demotion, or constructive discharge occurred; no actionable adverse employment action under public policy exception | Court: Affirmed — even assuming public‑policy theory, Knapp failed to show discharge/demotion or material adverse action required by Trosper/Jackson |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for prima facie disparate‑treatment claims)
- Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)
- Trosper v. Bag ’N Save, 273 Neb. 855 (recognizing public‑policy exception to at‑will employment; limits to discharge/demotion claims)
- Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (NFEPA interpreted in line with federal Title VII precedents)
- Hunt v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021 (Eighth Circuit on EPA prima facie equal‑pay standards)
- Price v. Northern States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186 (Eighth Circuit on establishing prima facie EPA claims)
- Jackson v. Morris Communications Corp., 265 Neb. 423 (public‑policy retaliation in workers’ compensation context)
- Helvering v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 13 Neb. App. 818 (formulation of prima facie gender discrimination elements and rigor of comparator analysis)