Dr. Shereen Kader sued Harris-Stowe State University and its Board of Regents in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, raising claims of discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. After an initial jury verdict in Dr. Kader’s favor was reversed on appeal, a second jury trial resulted in a verdict for Harris-Stowe, leading Dr. Kader to appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
Factual Overview
Dr. Kader initially brought discrimination claims based on race and national origin, as well as a retaliation claim against Harris-Stowe. In the first trial, while the jury found against Dr. Kader on her race discrimination claim, it ruled in her favor on the retaliation and national origin discrimination claims, awarding her $750,000 in actual damages and $1.75 million in punitive damages. Harris-Stowe appealed this verdict, arguing the jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial. The Missouri Court of Appeals agreed and reversed, and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed that reversal, finding that jury instructions 8 and 9 were erroneous and prejudicial. The case was remanded for a new trial on Dr. Kader’s national origin discrimination and retaliation claims. At the second trial in July and August 2023, the jury found in Harris-Stowe’s favor on both claims.
Legal Analysis
Evidentiary Issues: Dr. Kader raised two points on appeal regarding evidentiary rulings. First, she argued that the trial court erred in admitting an email from a Harris-Stowe employee because it contained “highly prejudicial” hearsay. Second, she contended that the court erred in allowing a Harris-Stowe witness to testify about his emotional response to her lawsuit, arguing this testimony was neither logically nor legally relevant.
Inadequate Development of Arguments: The court found that Dr. Kader failed to adequately develop either argument on appeal. Regarding the email evidence, the court noted that Dr. Kader’s argument consisted merely of the standard of review, a brief summary of hearsay principles, and a three-sentence argument lacking citation to case law or the record. Similarly, on the witness testimony issue, Dr. Kader provided only a minimalist argument of four sentences without citation to authority or the record. The court emphasized that it could not construct arguments on Dr. Kader’s behalf and that her conclusory assertions failed to demonstrate how she was entitled to reversal.
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding that Dr. Kader failed to meet her burden of demonstrating reversible error on both points of appeal.
Schrag on Law 