1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 18 F.3d
  5. 18 F.3d 836 (1994)
 

DURHAM v. XEROX CORP.

No. 92-6398.

18 F.3d 836 (1994)

Mary P. DURHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. XEROX CORPORATION, a New York corporation doing business in the state of Oklahoma, Defendant-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

February 24, 1994.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lewis Barber, Jr. (Guinise M. Marshall with him on the brief), Barber & Marshall, P.A., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Carol Stephenson, P.C., Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., Dallas, Texas, for the Defendant-Appellee.

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and KANE, District Judge.

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...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases