Karen L. Edwards v. Occidental Chemical Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the petitioner “recei[ved] her right to sue letter on August 14, 1986” where “the [EEOC] issued a right to sue letter on August 14, 1986”
• stating that the defect may be cured if there is no prejudice to the defendant
• holding 8 district court may grant request to amend, made in opposition to motion for summary 9 judgment, without requiring requesting party to file motion to amend
• affirming district court’s award of back pay calculated by determining the difference between what the plaintiff previously earned and what the plaintiff would have earned if the defendant had promoted her
• although the plaintiff did not formally request leave to amend as part of her opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, that “did not preclude” the district court from granting leave to amend
• “Edwards did not 22 call the request in her opposition to OPC’s motion for summary judgment a ‘motion for leave to 23 amend,’ and she did not tender a formal amendment. But these circumstances did not preclude 24 the district court from granting leave to amend.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).