discharged. Section 623(a)(1) specifically prohibits an employer from discharging “or otherwise discriminating] against any individual with respect to his ... terms ... of employment, because of such individual’s age.” We consider whether a particular action was adverse on “a case-by-case approach, examining the unique factors relevant to the situation at hand.” Stinnett v. Safeway, Inc., 337 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Nivette claimed that Halverson’s decision not to recommend renewal of her contract was motivated by age discrimination. It is this decision that forms the adverse action required, and Nivette did not have to prove that she was constructively discharged. Cf. Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Sch., 43 F.3d 1373 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). B. Resignation. The district court properly
holding that title vii plaintiff must show that retaliatory motive played a part in the adverse employment action recognizing failure to renew contract as adverse action holding that failure to renew contract was adverse employment action holding in title vii case that plaintiff demonstrated adverse employment action in school districts decision not to renew principals contract for the following year but offering principal a demotion holding that retaliatory discharge demotion or other adverse employment claims state a cause of action under  1981