ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals has affirmed a judgment in favor of Harris-Stowe State University and its governing body, the Board of Regents, in a case brought by a former professor.
Dr. Shereen Kader alleged race and national origin discrimination, as well as retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), according to the opinion filed Dec. 24 in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
The appeal marked the latest chapter in a protracted legal battle that began several years ago, with earlier judgments and appeals shaping the outcome of the high-profile case.
Kader initially filed her lawsuit against Harris-Stowe, claiming she faced discrimination and retaliation in her role as a professor.
At the first trial, the jury ruled against Kader on her race discrimination claim but found in her favor on claims of national origin discrimination and retaliation, awarding her a substantial $750,000 in actual damages and $1.75 million in punitive damages.
However, Harris-Stowe appealed the decision, asserting that the jury instructions in the original trial were erroneous and prejudicial.
Both the Missouri Court of Appeals and the state Supreme Court agreed with Harris-Stowe, reversing the initial judgment and ordering a retrial on the national origin discrimination and retaliation claims.
The retrial, conducted in mid-2023, resulted in a jury verdict entirely in favor of Harris-Stowe.
Kader then appealed this decision, raising two primary arguments that the Court of Appeals ultimately rejected.
In her appeal, Kader contended that the trial court erred in two key ways: Admissibility of evidence and witness testimony.
Kader argued that the trial court improperly admitted an email from a Harris-Stowe employee to her into evidence, according to the opinion.
She claimed the email contained hearsay that was "highly prejudicial" and should not have been considered by the jury.
Kader also objected to the testimony of a Harris-Stowe witness who described their emotional response to her lawsuit. She argued this testimony was neither logically nor legally relevant and could have biased the jury against her.
The Court of Appeals rejected both of Kader’s arguments, citing her failure to adequately develop legal arguments or provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate reversible error.
On the issue of the email, the court noted that Kader provided only minimal reasoning, failing to explain how the legal principles surrounding hearsay applied to the specific facts of her case.
The court found that Kader did not adequately demonstrate how the emotional statements prejudiced the jury or violated legal standards.
The court highlighted that it is the appellant’s responsibility to present a compelling argument for reversal, a burden Kader did not meet.
"Dr. Kader leaves it to this Court to construct an argument on her behalf as to why these propositions should justify reversal in this case," Judge Michael S. Wright wrote. "This we cannot do. Accordingly, because Dr. Kader did not adequately develop an argument demonstrating reversible error, both points must fail."
For Harris-Stowe, the decision brings closure to a long-running legal dispute and reaffirms the jury’s finding that the institution did not discriminate or retaliate against Kader.
The appellant is represented by Andrew A. Westerfeld.
The respondent is represented by Booker T. Shaw and Sonette T. Magnus.
The attorneys declined to comment on the case.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED112158