Knapp v. Ruser, 297 Neb. 639

Background

Patricia Knapp was a long‑time supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska College of Law civil clinical program who moved from half‑time to full‑time Temporary Lecturer (a nontenure "special appointment") in 2011 with an $80,000 salary.
Knapp learned a male clinic professor hired in 2012 received a substantially higher salary and raised concerns about gender pay and classification disparities with director Kevin Ruser and the dean.
After those complaints Knapp alleges Ruser became hostile, less communicative, and disengaged from clinic duties; Knapp resigned effective May 31, 2013 after concluding they could not work together.
Knapp sued asserting multiple federal and state employment claims; federal court dismissed her federal claims (Title VII and EPA) and remanded four state claims to Lancaster County District Court: (1) wage discrimination (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48‑1221(1)), (2) sex discrimination under the NFEPA (§ 48‑1104), (3) retaliation under the NFEPA (§ 48‑1114), and (4) public‑policy retaliation (wrongful discharge theory).
The state district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all four remanded claims, finding Knapp failed to identify similarly situated male comparators, failed to show materially adverse employment actions, and did not establish discharge/demotion required for a public‑policy exception. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fifth claim (sex discrimination under NFEPA) should be analyzed as improper classification and/or failure‑to‑hire/promote	Knapp argued the court should treat it as improper classification under § 48‑1104(2) and that male faculty were classified/treated differently	Defendants contended NFEPA claims must show similarly situated comparators and Knapp's role differed from male faculty; she never applied for tenure positions	Court held the McDonnell Douglas framework applies; even if characterized as classification, Knapp failed to identify similarly situated male comparators; summary judgment affirmed
Whether fourth claim (wage discrimination under § 48‑1221(1)) was supported by evidence of equal work/comparable male employees	Knapp argued males in clinic/faculty earned more and thus showed pay discrimination	Defendants argued comparators had substantially different duties (research, service, tenure‑track responsibilities) making jobs not equal or substantially equal	Court applied EPA prima facie framework and Hunt standards; found duties materially different, so no prima facie wage discrimination; summary judgment affirmed
Whether seventh claim (retaliation under NFEPA § 48‑1114) established an adverse employment action	Knapp argued Ruser’s post‑complaint conduct created hostile conditions that forced her resignation (protected opposition)	Defendants argued alleged slights and reduced communication were minor and not materially adverse	Court applied Burlington standard (material adversity) and held conduct was petty/minor, not materially adverse or causing concrete harm; summary judgment affirmed
Whether ninth claim (public‑policy retaliation/wrongful discharge) is actionable based on ethical concerns and alleged constructive discharge	Knapp invoked public‑policy exception (Trosper/Jackson) grounded in legal‑ethics duties in a clinical setting	Defendants argued no discharge/demotion or materially adverse conduct occurred; public‑policy exception is limited to clear mandates and discharge/demotion contexts	Court found no discharge, demotion, or materially adverse action tied to public policy violation; claim fails and summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting prima facie framework for disparate treatment claims)
Burlington N. & S.F. R.R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (materially adverse standard for retaliation claims)
Hunt v. Nebraska Pub. Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021 (Eighth Circuit EPA/"substantially equal" job analysis)
Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (Nebraska precedent instructing NFEPA interpreted with Title VII guidance)
Trosper v. Bag ’N Save, 273 Neb. 855 (public‑policy exception to at‑will employment; scope limited to clear mandates)