Knapp v. Ruser
297 Neb. 639
Neb.2017Background
- Patricia Knapp was a longtime part‑time then full‑time supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska College of Law civil clinical program; her position was a non‑tenure “Temporary Lecturer”/special appointment.
- Knapp learned a male clinic hire earned substantially more and raised concerns about gender pay/classification to Director Kevin Ruser and the dean; she alleged Ruser’s attitude and engagement toward her and the clinic deteriorated afterward.
- Knapp resigned May 31, 2013, and sued the University and Ruser asserting federal and state claims for sex discrimination, wage discrimination, retaliation, and public‑policy retaliation.
- The federal district court dismissed Knapp’s federal Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims and remanded four state law claims (fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth) to state court because of sovereign immunity issues.
- The Lancaster County district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the remanded state claims, finding Knapp failed to establish prima facie showings (e.g., similarly situated comparators, adverse employment actions); it also denied her motion to alter or amend.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, applying McDonnell Douglas framework and federal analogues to Nebraska statutes and holding Knapp did not raise genuine issues of material fact on the remanded claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Knapp stated a sex‑discrimination claim under NFEPA (fifth claim) | Knapp argued the court should treat her claim as improper classification under §48‑1104(2) and that males were classified/paid differently | Defendants argued comparators were not similarly situated and differences stemmed from different duties and tenure eligibility | Court: No error; district court properly applied McDonnell Douglas; comparators not similarly situated, summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Knapp proved wage discrimination under Neb. §48‑1221(1) (fourth claim) | Knapp argued male clinic/faculty were paid more for substantially similar work | Defendants argued male comparators had materially different duties (research, administration, tenure track) so work was not equal | Court: Adopted federal EPA standard; jobs not substantially equal; no prima facie showing; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Knapp proved retaliation under NFEPA (seventh claim) | Knapp argued she engaged in protected activity and Ruser’s post‑complaint conduct forced her to resign (adverse action) | Defendants argued alleged slights/withdrawal were minor and not materially adverse or causally connected to a protected activity | Court: Applied Burlington standard; conduct was petty/minor, not materially adverse; claim fails |
| Whether Knapp stated a public‑policy retaliation claim (ninth claim) | Knapp argued raising ethical concerns about clinic practice implicated public policy (Neb. Rules of Professional Conduct) and defendants retaliated | Defendants argued no discharge, demotion, or materially adverse employment action occurred | Court: Public‑policy exception limited to discharge/demotion; no material adverse action shown; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for prima facie disparate treatment)
- Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (NFEPA analyzed with Title VII analogues)
- Trosper v. Bag ’N Save, 273 Neb. 855 (public‑policy exception to at‑will employment explained)
- Jackson v. Morris Communications Corp., 265 Neb. 423 (workers’ compensation‑based public‑policy exception recognition)
- 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 formulation for EPA prima facie showing)
- Price v. Northern States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186 (Eighth Circuit guidance on EPA comparator analysis)