ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

to respond to the charges but declined to do so. Reed brought suit and the defendants motioned
for summary judgment.
Issues: (1) Did Rolla 31 practice gender discrimination violating the Missouri Human
Rights Act (MHRA) by not renewing Reed’s contract? (2) Did the district retaliate against Reed
for her gender discrimination claim and violate MHRA? (3) Did the board maliciously prosecute
Reed? (4) Was the district illegally and improperly motivated?
Holding: The court held that on each count raised by Reed that she failed to proffer
evidence that supported her assertions.
Reasoning: During her deposition for trial, Reed buttressed her claims for discrimination
on her knowledge of men within the school district that had participated in affairs but that were
not subjected to a loss of employment for it. First, Reed had to survive a four-part analysis to
establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination. One, Reed must be a member of a
protected group, which she was. Two, Reed must demonstrate that she was meeting the
expectations of her employers, which she was based on her prior evaluations (marked as meeting
or exceeding in all categories). Three, Reed must have suffered an adverse employment action,
which she did by losing employment. Four, Reed must provide evidence to give rise to an
inference of discrimination, which the court decided she did. However, upon close review the
court found that Reed’s most recent evaluations were for the 2001/2002 school year, which did
not include any of the events that led to this suit. Moreover, Reed provided no evidence to
dissuade the court from believing that Adams and Zalis did not think that she was having an
inappropriate relationship with Cook. Reed further argued that her presentation of similarly
situated males involved in affairs proved that the district’s reasons for non-renewal were pre-
textual. The court did not agree. In every instance that Reed presented, she could provide little to
213