years old and that he was meeting its legitimate expectations, but disputes that Dunn suffered an adverse employment action or was replaced by someone substantially younger. a. Adverse Employment Action The parties’ main dispute under this element concerns whether the Board’s nonrenewal of Dunn’s contract constitutes an adverse employment action. The School District argues that the nonrenewal was not an adverse employment action because once Dunn retired he became a nontenured employee with no expectation of a continuing contract and could therefore be nonrenewed without cause. See S.D. Codified Laws (SDCL) § 13-43-6.3 (stating that a school is not required to give a reason for nonrenewal to a nontenured teacher); Wirt v. Parker Sch. Dist. No. 60-4, 689 N.W.2d 901, 905-07 (S.D.2004) (<HOLDING>). The School District argues further that
holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave holding that employee who resigned left voluntarily where employer accepted resignation told employee not to come to work anymore and paid employee through end of notice period holding that teacher who voluntarily resigned cashed out her sick leave and was then rehired on a oneyear contract no longer had tenure holding employee resigned and was not constructively discharged because there was no evidence that employer deliberately created working conditions that led to her resignation holding that appellants complaint on appeal that the environment was coercive did not change the fact that he was not in custody when he voluntarily went to the police station was told several times he could leave and did leave after the interrogation