Knapp v. Ruser
297 Neb. 639
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Patricia Knapp was a long‑time supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska College of Law civil clinic who moved from half‑time to a full‑time temporary lecturer/“special appointment” role in 2011 with an $80,000 salary.
- Knapp learned a male hire received a substantially higher clinic salary and complained to her supervisor, Director Kevin Ruser, about alleged gender pay/classification inequities and historical problems for women in the clinic.
- After a heated exchange, Knapp alleges Ruser became hostile, withdrew from communication and clinic supervision, and she resigned effective May 31, 2013, claiming constructive discharge/retaliation and wage/classification discrimination.
- Knapp sued the University and Ruser; federal court dismissed several federal claims on summary judgment and remanded four state‑law claims to Lancaster County district court (claims 4, 5, 7, 9).
- The state court granted summary judgment for defendants on the remanded claims (state EPA wage claim, NFEPA discrimination and retaliation claims, and a public‑policy retaliation claim) and denied Knapp’s motion to alter or amend; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Knapp's Argument | Ruser/University's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Knapp pleaded and proved improper classification or failure‑to‑hire/discrimination under NFEPA §48‑1104 | The court should treat her claim as improper classification under §48‑1104(2) (classifying employees to deprive opportunities) and she presented evidence of males moved into higher‑pay tenure positions | The evidence shows Knapp’s role differed substantively from male comparators; differences reflect duties/status, not sex‑based classification | Court effectively applied McDonnell Douglas framework to §48‑1104(1)/(2) and held Knapp failed to prove a prima facie case of improper classification/failure‑to‑hire |
| Whether Knapp identified similarly situated male comparators for discrimination claims | Males who obtained tenure/higher pay demonstrate disparate treatment and comparators | Male comparators had materially different duties (research, admin, community service, tenure eligibility); not similarly situated | Court held Knapp failed to show similarly situated males and so failed prima facie discrimination proof |
| Whether Knapp proved wage discrimination under Nebraska EPA §48‑1221(1) (equal work) | Her lower salary versus male clinic faculty shows wage discrimination | Jobs were not substantially equal; male hires performed additional, non‑insubstantial duties justifying pay differentials | Court applied federal EPA framework and held jobs were not substantially equal; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether Knapp proved retaliation under NFEPA §48‑1114 (adverse action causally connected to protected conduct) | Complaints about gender discrimination led to hostile conduct that forced her resignation (adverse action) | Post‑complaint behavior amounted to petty slights/minor annoyances, not materially adverse actions causing concrete harm | Court held actions were not materially adverse to a reasonable employee and dismissed retaliation claim |
| Whether Knapp’s public‑policy retaliation (ethical concerns re: clinic practice) supports tort claim | Raising ethical concerns about clinic practice invoked public policy protecting reporting and should support retaliation claim | Public‑policy exception applies to discharge/demotion; Knapp did not allege discharge/demotion or constructive discharge with material harm | Court declined to extend public‑policy remedy; no actionable adverse employment action shown, claim failed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes prima facie burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation adverse‑action standard: materially adverse to reasonable employee)
- Hunt v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021 (Eighth Circuit: EPA equal‑work/substantially equal jobs analysis)
- Price v. Northern States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186 (Eighth Circuit discussion of EPA prima facie and affirmative defenses)
- Trosper v. Bag ’N Save, 273 Neb. 855 (Nebraska public‑policy exception to at‑will doctrine for retaliatory discharge/demotion)
- Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (Nebraska treats NFEPA consistent with federal Title VII frameworks)
- Knapp v. Ruser, 145 F. Supp. 3d 846 (D. Neb. 2015) (federal court dismissed federal claims and remanded state claims)