In Berry v. Stevinson Chevrolet, 74 F.3d 980 (10th Cir.1996), the plaintiffs former employer complained to the county sheriffs office that the plaintiff had committed forgery and theft. Id. at 984. The plaintiff was subsequently prosecuted for and acquitted of those crimes. Id. Analyzing the plaintiffs retaliation claim, the district court held that reporting the plaintiff of a suspected crime constituted an adverse employment action. Id. at 986. On appeal, the Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and emphasized that a “criminal trial ... is necessarily public and therefore carries a significant risk of humiliation, damage to reputation, and a concomitant harm to future employment prospects.” Id. at 986-87 (citing Passer v. American Chemical Soc., 935 F.2d 322 (D.C.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>)). The “public humiliation” concern set forth
holding that a prima facie case for discrimination requires the plaintiff to show that 1 he belongs to the protected age group 2 his job performance was satisfactory 3 adverse employment action was taken against him  in 4  circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination  holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her gender discrimination claim because she only checked the boxes for age discrimination and retaliation holding that conduct causing public humiliation was not an actionable adverse employment action because public perceptions were not a term or condition of employment of the plaintiffs employment holding that cancellation of benefit to honor plaintiff in retaliation for filing an age discrimination complaint constitutes adverse employment action because of public humiliation involved holding that termination is an adverse employment action