Knapp v. Ruser, 297 Neb. 639

Background

Patricia Knapp was a long‑time supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska College of Law civil clinic who worked half‑time for years and moved to a full‑time temporary lecturer (special appointment) role in 2011 with an $80,000 salary.
Knapp discovered a male clinic professor hired at a higher salary and raised concerns about gender pay/classification equity with Director Kevin Ruser and the dean; relations with Ruser then soured and she resigned in 2013.
Knapp sued Ruser (in his official capacity) and the University Board of Regents asserting state and federal claims for sex discrimination, wage discrimination (Equal Pay), retaliation, and public‑policy retaliation. The federal district court dismissed federal claims and remanded four state claims to Lancaster County: (4th) state EPA wage claim, (5th) NFEPA discrimination/classification, (7th) NFEPA retaliation, and (9th) public‑policy retaliation.
On summary judgment the state district court applied McDonnell Douglas and federal analogues, concluding Knapp failed to identify similarly situated male comparators or any materially adverse employment action and granted summary judgment for defendants. Knapp’s motion to alter or amend was denied.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly applied federal‑analogue frameworks to the Nebraska statutes, (2) Knapp failed to show comparators performing substantially equal work for wage/discrimination claims, and (3) her complaints about workplace slights and reduced communication did not constitute materially adverse actions for retaliation or public‑policy claims.

Issues

Issue	Knapp's Argument	Ruser / University Argument	Held
Whether Knapp stated an improper‑classification discrimination claim under NFEPA § 48‑1104(2)	Court should analyze as classification claim; clinic staffing and assignment practices discriminated by sex	The district court properly analyzed under McDonnell Douglas as disparate treatment/failure‑to‑hire because duties and status differed	Affirmed: court’s McDonnell Douglas analysis subsumed any classification theory; Knapp failed to show prima facie discrimination
Whether Knapp identified similarly situated male comparators for NFEPA disparate‑treatment claim	Male colleagues who moved into tenure/paid positions show discriminatory treatment	Male comparators had substantively different duties (research, community service, admin) and were not similarly situated	Affirmed: comparators were not similarly situated; prima facie case failed
Whether Knapp proved wage discrimination under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48‑1221(1) (state EPA analogue)	Salary disparity with a male clinic hire shows pay discrimination	Male hire performed substantially different/elevated duties; jobs not equal or substantially equal	Affirmed: jobs not substantially equal under EPA framework; prima facie wage claim fails
Whether Knapp proved retaliation (NFEPA § 48‑1114) or public‑policy retaliation (Trosper‑type claim)	Complaints about gender bias and ethical concerns led to hostility and constructive discharge; public policy (legal ethics) protects her	Post‑complaint conduct (less communication, slights, disengagement) were minor annoyances; no discharge, demotion, or materially adverse act	Affirmed: actions were not materially adverse to a reasonable employee and did not support retaliation or public‑policy claim

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 (Eighth Circuit explanation of EPA "equal work" / substantially equal jobs)
Trosper v. Bag ’N Save, 273 Neb. 855 (Neb. Supreme Court recognizing and limiting public‑policy exception to at‑will doctrine)
Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (NFEPA construed with guidance from federal Title VII jurisprudence)