Knapp v. Ruser, 297 Neb. 639

Background

Patricia Knapp was a long‑time supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska College of Law civil clinic who moved from half‑time to full‑time Temporary Lecturer (non‑tenure) status in 2011 with an $80,000 salary.
Knapp discovered higher salaries for male faculty who held tenure‑eligible or broader positions and complained that the clinic’s salary/structure had a gender‑equity problem to Director Kevin Ruser and later to the dean.
After the complaints, Knapp alleges Ruser became hostile, less communicative, and disengaged from clinic duties; Knapp resigned effective May 31, 2013.
Knapp sued asserting multiple federal and state employment claims; federal court dismissed her federal claims (Title VII and EPA) and remanded four state law claims to state court (claims 4, 5, 7, 9).
On remand the state district court granted summary judgment for defendants on: (4) wage discrimination under Nebraska’s EPA analogue, (5) sex discrimination under NFEPA (failure to hire/classification), (7) retaliation under NFEPA, and (9) public‑policy retaliation; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Knapp entitled to relief for sex discrimination/classification under NFEPA (§48‑1104)?	Knapp argued the clinic improperly classified employees and moved men from non‑tenure to tenure tracks while denying her comparable opportunities.	Defendants argued comparators were not similarly situated because male colleagues had substantially different duties and sometimes tenure‑eligible roles; Knapp never applied for tenure positions.	The court held Knapp failed to identify similarly situated male comparators; summary judgment for defendants affirmed.
Wage discrimination under §48‑1221(1) (state EPA analogue)	Knapp argued she was paid less than male counterparts for comparable work.	Defendants argued male comparators performed substantially different/additional duties (research, administration, clinic creation) so work was not substantially equal.	Court held Knapp did not prove prima facie equal‑work comparators; summary judgment affirmed.
Retaliation under NFEPA (§48‑1114)	Knapp said her complaints about gender discrimination led to materially adverse actions by Ruser that forced her to resign.	Defendants said Ruser’s alleged conduct amounted to petty slights/minor annoyances, not materially adverse employment actions.	Court held alleged conduct was not materially adverse to a reasonable employee and failed to show requisite harm/causal link; summary judgment affirmed.
Public‑policy retaliation (tort‑based retaliatory discharge)	Knapp contended raising ethical concerns about clinic practice implicated public policy (Rules of Professional Conduct) and supported a tort claim.	Defendants argued the public‑policy exception (as in wrongful discharge cases) applies only to discharge/demotion; here there was no discharge, demotion, or constructive discharge supported by evidence.	Court held Knapp failed to show an adverse employment action of the type required for public‑policy claim; summary judgment affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for proving disparate treatment discrimination)
Trosper v. Bag 'N Save, 273 Neb. 855 (recognizing limited public‑policy exception to at‑will employment)
Hunt v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021 (standard for prima facie EPA equal‑pay/equal‑work showing)
Burlington N. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (materially adverse standard for retaliation claims)
Price v. Northern States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186 (Eighth Circuit discussion of EPA prima facie requirements)
Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (NFEPA interpreted with guidance from federal Title VII framework)
Jackson v. Morris Communications Corp., 265 Neb. 423 (public‑policy exception examples such as retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claim)