Knapp v. Ruser
297 Neb. 639
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Patricia Knapp was a supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska College of Law civil clinic who transitioned from part-time to full-time (temporary lecturer / special appointment) in 2011; her salary was $80,000.
- Knapp discovered a male clinic faculty member hired at a higher salary and complained of a gender pay/classification problem to Director Kevin Ruser; relations thereafter soured and Knapp resigned in May 2013.
- Knapp sued Ruser and the Board of Regents asserting federal and state claims (Title VII, EPA, and state-law analogues, plus public-policy retaliation); federal court dismissed and remanded four state-law claims to Lancaster County District Court.
- The state court granted summary judgment for defendants on the four remanded claims: (1) wage discrimination under 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; Knapp’s motion to alter or amend was denied.
- On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the court affirmed summary judgment, holding Knapp failed to establish prima facie showings (notably lack of similarly situated male comparators, no materially adverse employment action, and no actionable discharge/demotion under public-policy theory).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Knapp showed sex discrimination under NFEPA (§ 48-1104) (improper classification / failure-to-hire) | Knapp argued she was improperly classified/denied opportunities and identified male faculty who moved into higher-paying/tenure-track roles | Defendants argued comparators were not similarly situated (different duties/tenure status) and Knapp never applied for tenure-track posts | Court: Affirmed — Knapp failed to identify similarly situated male comparators; treated as failure-to-hire also unsupported |
| Whether Knapp proved wage discrimination under § 48-1221(1) (state EPA analogue) | Knapp argued she was paid less than male clinic faculty performing similar work | Defendants contended male faculty had substantially different/additional duties (research, administration, community service) making positions not equal | Court: Affirmed — jobs not substantially equal; no prima facie EPA showing |
| Whether Knapp proved retaliation under NFEPA (§ 48-1114) | Knapp said complaining about sex discrimination led to hostile conduct that forced her to resign | Defendants said conduct was interpersonal slights/withdrawal, not materially adverse | Court: Affirmed — actions were minor slights; no materially adverse employment action to deter a reasonable worker |
| Whether public-policy retaliation (tort-based) claim is actionable here | Knapp urged a public-policy exception tied to ethical duties of a de facto law-firm clinic and alleged retaliation for raising ethical concerns | Defendants argued there was no discharge, demotion, or constructive discharge tied to protected public policy | Court: Affirmed — no discharge/demotion or materially adverse action shown; public-policy claim fails |
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)
- Hunt v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021 (Eighth Circuit; defining prima facie EPA equal-work analysis)
- Price v. Northern States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186 (Eighth Circuit; EPA prima facie framework)
- Trosper v. Bag ’N Save, 273 Neb. 855 (Neb. 2007) (public-policy exception to at-will employment limited to clear mandates and discharge/demotion contexts)
- Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (Neb. 2016) (NFEPA is patterned on Title VII; federal framework guides interpretation)
- Knapp v. Ruser, 145 F. Supp. 3d 846 (D. Neb. 2015) (federal district court opinion dismissing Knapp’s federal claims and remanding state claims)