Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01335/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01335-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

1

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

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1335

___________

J.C. Lambert, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Arkansas.

*

University of Arkansas, Board of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Trustees, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 28, 2005

Filed: January 11, 2006 

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

J.C. Lambert appeals the district court’s1

 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, 126 S. Ct. 807 (de novo standard of

review), we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-1335 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2006 Entry ID: 1995792
-2-

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. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1335 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2006 Entry ID: 1995792