ST. LOUIS — An appeals court has reversed a $2.5 million discrimination verdict against Harris-Stowe State University, finding a St. Louis City Circuit Court erred in its verdict instructions.
The case brought by Dr. Shereen Kader has been remanded to St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Mark Neill.
Kader came to the United States in 1999 from Egypt on a J-1 visa, which is given to individuals participating in work or study programs, and was hired by Harris Stowe as an instructor in Early Childhood Development in the College of Education in 2007, according to background information in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District ruling. She was later promoted to assistant professor. From 2007 to 2009, her employment contract was annually renewed.
After receiving low marks on a performance evaluation in October 2009 by LaTisha Smith, the dean of education who is African-American, Kader claimed that she was being unfairly treated because of her national origin and immigration status.
Her visa later expired, and Harris-Stowe did not assist Kader in appealing a decision from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that denied her petition for an O-1 visa, which is given to people demonstrating USCIS.
She sued claiming violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act; that Harris-Stowe discriminated against her on the basis of race, national origin and religion; and retaliated against her for opposing Harris-Stowe's alleged discriminatory practices.
A jury in Neill's court returned verdicts in favor of Kader on the claims of national origin discrimination and retaliation but found in favor of Harris-Stowe on the racial discrimination claim. The trial court awarded Kader $750,000 in actual damages and $1.75 million in punitive damages. On appeal, Harris-Stowe raised four claims of trial court error.
According to the Jan. 9 ruling, the third claim, involving instructional error, is dispositive, and "thus we do not address the remaining claims."
“Because the trial court erred in submitting the verdict directing instructions, which resulted in prejudice, we reverse and remand for a new trial,” the ruling states.