Mary P. Durham v. Xerox Corporation, a New York Corporation Doing Business in the State of Oklahoma

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “unexplained delay alone” can be adequate justification for the denial of a motion to amend
• explaining that the district court’s grant of a motion to strike was a “discretionary decision” that is reviewed for abuse of discretion
• failing to offer sufficient evidence to support finding that reason was pretext
• stating standards and burdens under Section 1981 are the same as those under Title VII and require evidence of discriminatory intent
• “Without proof of pretext or direct evidence of discriminatory intent, Durham cannot meet her ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination.”
• “[P]roof that [plaintiff] was more qualified would disprove [the employer’s] only explanation for its actions, that [plaintiff] was less qualified than the successful candidates.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).