Lambert v. University of Arkansas

Eighth Circuit

Lambert v. University of Arkansas

162 F. App'x 663

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 2006

Docket05-1335

StatusUnpublished

This text of 162 F. App'x 663 (Lambert v. University of Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lambert v. University of Arkansas, 162 F. App'x 663 (8th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

J.C. Lambert appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Title VII action against the University of Arkansas, Board of Trustees (Board). His claims arose from the non-renewal of his employment contract as a fire-training coordinator. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Shanklin v. Fitzgerald, 397 F.3d 596, 602 (8th Cir.2005), cert, denied,-U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 807, —L.Ed.2d- (de novo standard of review), we affirm.

Even assuming Lambert established a prima facie case of race discrimination, see Cherry v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 361 F.3d 474, 478 (8th Cir.2004) (elements), we conclude he did not create any trialworthy issues on whether the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not renewing his contract was pretextual. Lambert failed to produce admissible evidence sufficient to rebut the Board’s evidence. See Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 474 (8th Cir.2005) (nonmoving party must produce admissible evidence demonstrating genuine issue of material fact remains). Further, Lambert admits his opinion that complaints about his performance were racially motivated or based in discrimination lack factual support. See Marquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 353 F.3d 1037, 1038 (8th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (to survive summary judgment, nonmoving party must substantiate allegations with more than conjecture or speculation).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

J.C. Lambert appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Title VII action against the University of Arkansas, Board of Trustees (Board). His claims arose from the non-renewal of his employment contract as a fire-training coordinator. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Shanklin v. Fitzgerald, 397 F.3d 596, 602 (8th Cir.2005), cert, denied,-U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 807, —L.Ed.2d- (de novo standard of review), we affirm.

Even assuming Lambert established a prima facie case of race discrimination, see Cherry v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 361 F.3d 474, 478 (8th Cir.2004) (elements), we conclude he did not create any trialworthy issues on whether the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not renewing his contract was pretextual. Lambert failed to produce admissible evidence sufficient to rebut the Board’s evidence. See Sallis v. Univ. of Minn., 408 F.3d 470, 474 (8th Cir.2005) (nonmoving party must produce admissible evidence demonstrating genuine issue of material fact remains). Further, Lambert admits his opinion that complaints about his performance were racially motivated or based in discrimination lack factual support. See Marquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 353 F.3d 1037, 1038 (8th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (to survive summary judgment, nonmoving party must substantiate allegations with more than conjecture or speculation).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 F. App'x 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lambert-v-university-of-arkansas-ca8-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack