Legal Opinion
Mary P. Durham v. Xerox Corporation, a New York Corporation Doing Business in the State of Oklahoma
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided February 24, 1994No. 92-6398PublishedCited by 146 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
STEPHEN A. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
Mary Durham appeals both the district court’s summary judgment for Xerox Corporation on her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the court’s denial of leave to amend her complaint to include a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Because Durham has not offered sufficient evidence to support a finding that Xerox intentionally discriminated against her because of her race, we affirm the summary judgment. We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Durham’s amended complaint, because Durham waited three months to amend without any…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. AikensSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by146 opinions
- Minter v. Prime Equipment Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- Gary E. Wallis, Husband Carol Wallis, Wife v. J.R. Simplot CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Ofelia Randle v. City of AuroraCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- Aramburu v. The Boeing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
- Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997
141 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.