Eddie Williams v. Knob Noster School

___________
No. 96-1057
___________
Eddie Williams, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Knob Noster School District, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: October 4, 1996
Filed: October 8, 1996
___________
Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Eddie Williams, a custodian at Knob Noster School District, brought
this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, claiming that the district
intentionally discriminated against him based on his race when it failed
to promote him to head custodian in 1994. The district court1 granted
summary judgment in favor of Knob Noster and denied Williams's subsequent
motion for reconsideration. Williams appeals both orders; we affirm.
As Williams offered no direct evidence of discrimination, the
district court properly analyzed his case under the three-stage
1
The HONORABLE JOHN T. MAUGHMER, United States Magistrate
Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was
referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
analysis outlined in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and
Williams's arguments to the contrary are without merit. See Shannon v.
Ford Motor Co., 72 F.3d 678, 682 (8th Cir. 1996). We assume, as the
district court did, that Williams established a prima facie case of race
discrimination.
The burden of production then shifted to Knob Noster to rebut the
presumption of discrimination with evidence that Williams was rejected for
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. See id. We conclude Knob Noster
sufficiently made such a showing in its motion for summary judgment,
providing documentation demonstrating Williams's attendance and performance
deficiencies, as well as affidavits from the relevant decisionmakers
expressing concern about Williams's ability to supervise and lead others.
When Knob Noster rebutted Williams's prima facie case of
discrimination, Williams then had the burden to come forward with evidence
which, if believed, would establish that intentional discrimination was the
true reason for Knob Noster's adverse employment action. After careful
review of the summary judgment record, and de novo review of the district
court's decision, we agree that summary judgment was appropriate because
Williams failed to present a submissible case of discrimination. His
contention that St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 S. Ct. 2742 (1993),
does not permit the grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer in
these circumstances is contrary to the law of this circuit. See Krenik v.
County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 958-60 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we
affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-