Case Name: Cynthia HERMANN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MISSOURI STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER SYSTEM, Cathy Kelly, and Mary Fox, Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2015-02-10
Citations: 463 S.W.3d 797
Docket Number: No. ED 101046
Parties: Cynthia HERMANN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MISSOURI STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER SYSTEM, Cathy Kelly, and Mary Fox, Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 463
Pages: 797–798

Head Matter:
Cynthia HERMANN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. MISSOURI STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER SYSTEM, Cathy Kelly, and Mary Fox, Defendants/Respondents.
No. ED 101046
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: February 10, 2015
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 20, 2015
Application for Transfer Denied June 30, 2015
Matthew J. Ghio, 3115 S. Grand, Suite 300, St. Louis, MO 63118, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
Nicholas S. Beydler, Joel A. Poole, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for Defendants/Respondents.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Cynthia Hermann (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment granting the Missouri State Public Defender System's, Cathy Kelly's, and Mary Fox's (collectively Respondents) Motion for Directed Verdict on Appellant's retaliation claim in her Petition alleging employment discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not err in granting Respondents' Motion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).