Knapp v. Ruser
297 Neb. 639
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Patricia Knapp was a long‑time temporary/half‑time then full‑time supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska College of Law civil clinical program; her position was a nontenure ‘‘Temporary Lecturer’’/special appointment focused on teaching.
- In 2012–2013 Knapp learned male clinic faculty received substantially higher salaries and raised concerns about a perceived gender pay/classification gap to Director Kevin Ruser and the dean.
- After a heated exchange with Ruser, she alleges his demeanor changed, he became less communicative and less engaged, and the working environment deteriorated; Knapp resigned effective May 31, 2013.
- Knapp brought federal and state claims alleging sex‑based wage and employment discrimination, retaliation under federal law and Nebraska law (NFEPA), and a public‑policy retaliation claim under Nebraska law.
- The federal district court dismissed the federal claims on summary judgment and remanded four state claims (claims 4, 5, 7, and 9) to state court. The Lancaster County district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the remanded claims; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §48‑1104(2) improper classification claim (NFEPA) was correctly analyzed | Knapp: court should have analyzed claim as unlawful classification (sex‑based) under §48‑1104(2) | Defendants: McDonnell Douglas disparate‑treatment framework applies; comparators must be similarly situated | Court: McDonnell Douglas framework applies; court effectively considered classification and found Knapp failed to prove prima facie case |
| Whether Knapp identified similarly situated male comparators for discrimination claims (NFEPA/Title VII analogue) | Knapp: male faculty moved from nontenure into tenure/paid more—shows disparate treatment | Defendants: male comparators had substantially different duties (research, admin, outreach, tenure track), so not similarly situated | Court: Comparators were not similarly situated in all relevant aspects; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether §48‑1221(1) wage‑discrimination claim (Equal Pay analogue) was established | Knapp: paid less than male colleagues performing comparable clinic work | Defendants: males performed substantially different/additional work; jobs not substantially equal | Court: Jobs not substantially equal under EPA standards; Knapp failed to make prima facie wage‑discrimination showing |
| Whether alleged retaliatory conduct (NFEPA §48‑1114) and public‑policy retaliation gave rise to liability | Knapp: Ruser’s withdrawal, slights, and ethical concerns created materially adverse conditions and implicate public policy for legal ethics | Defendants: conduct was petty/slights, not materially adverse or a discharge/demotion; no cognizable public‑policy retaliatory action | Court: Conduct was not materially adverse (would not dissuade reasonable worker); no discharge/demotion or constructive discharge shown; claims fail |
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 (Nebraska public‑policy exception to at‑will employment)
- Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (NFEPA interpreted like Title VII)
- Hunt v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021 (Eighth Circuit analysis of ‘‘equal work’’ under EPA)
- Price v. Northern States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186 (Eighth Circuit on EPA prima facie showing)
- Knapp v. Ruser, 145 F. Supp. 3d 846 (D. Neb. 2015) (federal court decision dismissing Knapp’s federal claims and remanding state claims)