Knapp v. Ruser, 297 Neb. 639

Background

Patricia Knapp was a supervising attorney in the University of Nebraska College of Law civil clinic, employed part‑time since 1999 and moved to a full‑time temporary lecturer position in 2011 at $80,000.
Knapp learned a male faculty member hired in 2012 earned substantially more ($106,000) for a clinic role that included additional duties (research, outreach, administrative tasks) and complained to Director Kevin Ruser about perceived gender pay/classification disparities.
After a heated exchange about gender equity, Knapp alleges Ruser became hostile, disengaged from clinic supervision, and communicated less; Knapp resigned effective May 31, 2013 after raising concerns with the dean.
Knapp sued asserting state and federal claims (discrimination, wage disparity, retaliation, public‑policy retaliation); federal court dismissed her federal claims on summary judgment and remanded four state claims to Lancaster County District Court.
The state court granted summary judgment for defendants on the four remanded claims (state wage discrimination under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48‑1221(1); discrimination and retaliation under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA); and a public‑policy retaliation claim) and denied Knapp’s motion to alter or amend.
Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it held Knapp failed to prove prima facie comparators for wage/discrimination claims and failed to show a materially adverse employment action for retaliation or public‑policy claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Knapp proved sex‑based wage discrimination under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48‑1221(1) (state EPA analogue)	Knapp argued she was paid less than male clinic faculty performing comparable work	Defendants argued male comparators had substantially different/additional duties (research, admin, service) so jobs were not equal	Court held Knapp failed to show male employees performed equal/substantially equal work and affirmed summary judgment for defendants
Whether Knapp proved sex discrimination (NFEPA § 48‑1104) or improper classification	Knapp argued she was improperly classified/denied tenure track opportunities compared to male colleagues	Defendants argued comparators were not similarly situated; differences explained by different duties and the men moved into tenure roles only after assuming additional responsibilities	Court treated claim under McDonnell Douglas framework, found no similarly situated comparators, and affirmed summary judgment
Whether Knapp proved retaliation under NFEPA § 48‑1114 (adverse action requirement)	Knapp argued Ruser’s post‑complaint hostility and disengagement created an intolerable work environment that forced her to leave	Defendants argued conduct amounted to petty slights/minor annoyances, not materially adverse actions	Court held a reasonable employee would not find the actions materially adverse or likely to dissuade reporting; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Knapp’s public‑policy retaliation claim (ethical concerns of legal practice) supported relief	Knapp argued raising ethical concerns about clinic practice implicated public policy and that retaliation occurred	Defendants contended no discharge, demotion, or materially adverse action occurred; public‑policy exception applies to discharge/demotion, not trivial workplace friction	Court held no actionable adverse employment action or constructive discharge to invoke public‑policy exception; summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for proving disparate treatment discrimination)
Burlington N. & S.F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)
Trosper v. Bag ’N Save, 273 Neb. 855 (public‑policy exception to at‑will employment limited to clear mandates and typically discharge/demotion)
Hartley v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 294 Neb. 870 (NFEPA interpreted in light of federal Title VII precedent)
Hunt v. Nebraska Public Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021 (Eighth Circuit formulation for prima facie EPA equal‑pay showing)