Knapp v. Ruser
297 Neb. 639
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Patricia Knapp was a long‑time half‑time then full‑time supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska College of Law civil clinical program; her position was a temporary lecturer / special appointment not eligible for tenure.
- Knapp complained after learning a male clinic faculty member was hired at a higher salary and raised concerns about gender equity and clinic supervision with Director Kevin Ruser and the dean; she alleges his demeanor and communication toward her deteriorated and he disengaged from clinic duties.
- Knapp resigned on May 31, 2013, after raising ethical and gender‑equity concerns; she alleged this was caused by retaliatory and discriminatory conduct.
- Knapp filed federal claims (Title VII and Equal Pay Act) and state claims (Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act, Nebraska wage statutes, and a public‑policy retaliation claim); the federal court dismissed the federal claims on summary judgment and remanded four state claims to state court.
- The Lancaster County District Court granted summary judgment for defendants on the four remanded state claims: (1) Nebraska wage discrimination (§ 48‑1221(1)); (2) discrimination under the NFEPA (§ 48‑1104); (3) retaliation under the NFEPA (§ 48‑1114); and (4) public‑policy‑based retaliation; Knapp appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| NFEPA discrimination / improper classification (fifth claim) | Knapp argued the court should treat her claim as improper classification under § 48‑1104(2) and that male colleagues were classified into better roles | Defendants argued comparators were not similarly situated and differences were due to different duties and tenure status | Court treated claim under McDonnell Douglas framework, found no similarly situated male comparators, and affirmed summary judgment for defendants |
| Wage discrimination under § 48‑1221(1) (fourth claim) | Knapp argued male clinic faculty were paid more for the same or substantially equal work | Defendants argued male faculty had additional, non‑insubstantial duties (research, service, administrative tasks), so jobs were not equal | Court applied EPA‑analog test; jobs not substantially equal; affirmed summary judgment |
| Retaliation under NFEPA (§ 48‑1114) (seventh claim) | Knapp argued Ruser’s post‑complaint conduct created materially adverse conditions that forced her to resign | Defendants argued alleged conduct were petty slights and did not constitute materially adverse employment actions | Court held alleged conduct was not materially adverse (would not dissuade reasonable worker); summary judgment affirmed |
| Public‑policy retaliation (ninth claim) | Knapp argued ethical concerns (lawyers’ duties) support a public‑policy retaliatory discharge/demotion claim | Defendants argued no discharge, demotion, or materially adverse action occurred; public‑policy exception applies narrowly | Court found no cognizable adverse employment action tied to public policy claims; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes prima facie framework for disparate treatment)
- Burlington N. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)
- Trosper v. Bag ’N Save, 273 Neb. 855 (recognizes public‑policy exception to at‑will employment; limited to clear mandates)
- Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (NFEPA interpreted in light of federal Title VII precedents)
- Hunt v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021 (Eighth Circuit formulation of EPA prima facie equal‑work test)