green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
10.4 score
“durham has not offered sufficient evidence to support a finding that xerox's stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bodaghi v. Department of Natural Resources
durham has not offered sufficient evidence to support a finding that xerox's stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dudley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
he allocation of burdens under title vii applies to proving in 785 tentional discrimination under section 1981 as well.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Jennings
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 422 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
MacArthur v. San Juan County
See Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir.) (“Without proof of pretext or direct evidence of discriminatory intent, Durham cannot meet her ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination.”), cer t. denied, 513 U.S. 819 , 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Rowland v. Franklin Career Services, LLC
See Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 839 (10th Cir.1994) cert. denied 513 U.S. 819 , 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Didde v. Unified School District No. 207
See Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 839 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 513 U.S. 819 , 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 422 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 820 , 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas v. Denny's, Inc.
See Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 839 (10th Cir.), cert. *1510 denied, 513 U.S. 819 , 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Nunez-Rodriguez
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409 , 460 (1st Cir.), cert. ___ _____________ _______ _____ denied, 115 S. Ct. 80 (1994); United States v. Gregorio, 956 F.2d ______ _____________ ________ 341, 344 (1st Cir. 1992) ("Role-in-the-offense adjustments depend . . . not only on the comparative conduct of persons jointly engaged in criminal activity, but also on comparing each offende- r's actions and relative culpability with the elements of the of- fense.") (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Nunez-Rodriguez
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409 , 460 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 80 (1994); United States v. Gregorio, 956 F.2d 341, 344 (1st Cir. 1992) ("Role-in-the-offense adjustments depend . . . not only on the comparative conduct of persons jointly engaged in criminal activity, but also on comparing each offende- r's actions and relative culpability with the elements of the of- fense.") (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Josee Antonio Nunez-Rodriguez
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 460 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994); United States v. Gregorio, 956 F.2d 341, 344 (1st Cir.1992) (“Role-in-the-offense adjustments depend ... not only on the comparative conduct of persons jointly engaged in criminal activity, but also on comparing each offender’s actions and relative culpability with the elements of the offense.”) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aramburu v. Boeing Co.
See Arzate v. City of Topeka, 884 F.Supp. 1494, 1504 (D.Kan.1995) (“ 'The allocations of burdens under Title VII applies to proving intentional discrimination under section 1981 as well.' ") (quoting Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 839 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994)); Woods v. Midwest Conveyor Co., 231 Kan. 763, 766-767 , 648 P.2d 234 (1982); cf. Thomason v. Prudential Ins.
cited
Cited "see"
Reynolds v. School District No. 1
See Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 839 (10th Cir.) (applying McDonnell Douglas to § 1981 claim), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Reynolds v. School District No. 1
See Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 839 (10th Cir.) (applying McDonnell Douglas to Sec. 1981 claim), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gabriele
(2×)
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 452 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 80 , 81, 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994); United States v. Richardson, 14 F.3d 666, 671 (1st Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gabriele
(2×)
See United States v. Brandon, ___ _____________ _______ 17 F.3d 409, 448 (1st Cir.) (noting that requested instruction which includes an incorrect statement of the law should not be given), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 80 (1994). _____ ______ 6The instruction stated, inter alia: "In deciding whether a _____ ____ defendant acted knowingly, you may infer that the Defendant had knowledge of a fact if you find that [he] deliberately closed his eyes to a fact that otherwise would have been obvious to him." Further, the court cautioned the jury: "It's up to you to decide whether . . . this Defendant del…
discussed
Cited "see"
Arzate v. City of Topeka
See Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir.) (“Mere seniority does not support a finding that [the plaintiff] was more qualified for a different job.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Newman
(2×)
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 461 (1st Cir.) (imposing $500,000 restitution order, even though defendant had no current ability to pay, based on defendant’s future prospects of employment), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994); Lombardi, 5 F.3d at 573 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Newman
(2×)
See United ___ ______ States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409 , 461 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ______ _______ ____________ 115 S. Ct. 80 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Espeaignnette v. Tierney
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d ___ _____________ _______ 409, 444 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 80 , and cert. _____ ______ ___ _____ denied, 115 S. Ct. 81 (1994); Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
William and Rita ESPEAIGNNETTE, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. GENE TIERNEY COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Appellee
See United, States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 444 (1st Cir.), cert. denied , — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 34 , and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994); Fed.R.Evid. 104(a).
cited
Cited "see"
Espeaignnette v. Tierney
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 444 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 80 , and cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 81 (1994); Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Ventura-Ramos v. United States
See United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 460 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 80 , 81 (1994).
cited
Cited "see"
Ventura-Ramos v. United States
See United ___ ______ States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 460 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, ______ _______ ____________ 115 S. Ct. 80 , 81 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc.
See e.g., Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 819 , 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994) (granting summary judgment even after plaintiff had established a prima facie case of race discrimination on the grounds that plaintiff had “not offered sufficient evidence to support a finding that [defendant’s] stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.”); Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d 441 , 451 & n. 14 (10th Cir.1995) (explaining that “it [is] ... the plaintiffs burden to show that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the empl…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Edward L. Morris and Steven M. Gardner
To the extent [the] actual loss had other, more proximate causes, a discretionary downward departure — but not a mandatory ‘loss’ adjustment — might be appropriate.” 951 F.2d at 531 ; see also, e.g., United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470, 1500-01 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Neadle, 72 F.3d 1104, 1110 (3d Cir.1995) (“it is not appropriate to reduce the amount of the loss, as computed under the Guidelines, in order to reflect other causes of the loss which were beyond the defendant’s control.”); United States v. Shattuck, 961 F.2d 1012, 1016-17 (1st Cir.1992) (“The victim l…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kelley
See, e.g., United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 457 (1st Cir.), ___ ____ _____________ _______ cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 80 (1994).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Kelley
See, e.g., United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 457 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 80 , 81, 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Patriarca
See, e.g., United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409 , 451-52 and n. 72 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 80 and 115 S.Ct. 81 , 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994) (in order to prove knowledge based on alleged “willful blindness,” it must be shown that the defendant was aware of a high probability of the fact in question and deliberately avoided learning the fact; mere negligence is not enough).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ashley
“It has long been established that the words ‘offense against the United States’ encompass all offenses against the laws of the United States, not just offenses directed at the United States as target or victim.” United States v. Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 321 (6th Cir.1989) (emphasis added) (citing Radin v. United States, 189 F. 568 , [571] (2d Cir.1911)) (further citations omitted); see also United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 422 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 34 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ofelia Randle v. City of Aurora
See also Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 839-40 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994), where we said, “Although a prima facie case combined with disproof of the employer’s explanations does not prove intentional discrimination as a matter of law, it may permit the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination, and thus preclude summary judgment for the employer.... ‘The factfinder’s disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant ... may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination’ [q…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Durham
v.
Xerox Corp.
v.
Xerox Corp.
No. 93-1996.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1994.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: M.D. Alabama (1) · Colorado Court of Appeals (1)
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.