Knapp v. Ruser
145 F. Supp. 3d 846
| D. Neb. | 2015Background
- Knapp is a licensed Nebraska attorney who worked in the Law College Civil Clinic in non-tenure positions from 1999-2003, 2006-2011, and full-time as a Temporary Lecturer in 2011, under a Special Appointment per BRUN bylaws and Guidelines.
- She learned of a lower 2012-2013 salary offer compared to a recently hired male tenure-track colleague earning $106,000.
- Knapp complained of a gender equity issue in pay on August 22, 2012; after that, she alleges Ruser reduced communication and duties in the Civil Clinic.
- She ultimately resigned, alleging that the Civil Clinic failed to fulfill ethical obligations due to Ruser’s perceived conduct and that she could not work with him as a partner.
- The court treated six claims as federal (Title VII and EPA) and four as state-law, determining sovereign immunity barred the state-law claims but did not bar federal claims, which were evaluated on the merits.
- The court granted summary judgment on the federal claims and remanded state-law claims to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Knapp’s claims. | Knapp argues federal jurisdiction over Title VII and EPA claims. | Defendants contend sovereign immunity bars state-law claims but not federal ones. | Sovereign immunity does not bar federal claims; state-law claims remanded. |
| Whether Knapp states a prima facie Title VII disparate-treatment claim. | Knapp alleges sex-based discrimination in pay and promotion. | Knapp fails to show similarly situated male comparators or a facially neutral policy. | Disparate-treatment and EPA claims dismissed; no prima facie showing. |
| Whether Knapp states a viable disparate-impact claim. | Knapp asserts a facially-neutral policy affected women. | No facially-neutral policy identified by Knapp. | Disparate-impact claim dismissed. |
| Whether Knapp states a viable constructive-discharge or retaliation claim under Title VII. | Knapp alleges intolerable conditions and retaliation by Ruser. | No evidence of intent to force resignation or materially adverse action. | Constructive-discharge and retaliation claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (Eleventh Amendment jurisdictional barrier; state immunity)
- Lors v. Dean, 746 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2014) (Title VII abrogation of state sovereign immunity; framework for state claims)
- O’Sullivan v. Minnesota, 191 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 1999) (EPA abrogation of state immunity)
- Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2002) (sovereign-immunity waiver not sufficiently explicit)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment standard; employment-discrimination framework)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (U.S. 2009) (disparate-treatment vs. disparate-impact distinction)