Athletic Director and removed her from the position of Women's Athletic Coordinator. Finally, Lowrey alleged that the discrimination and retaliation of which she complains escalated after she participated in a civil rights complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education. 2 . In this regard, it is noteworthy that rule 15(a) authorizes amended pleadings "only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” Insofar as Tarleton consented to the proposed amendments, therefore, the district court disregarded the express terms of the rule by denying the motion to amend. Moreover, the proposed amendment merely stated alternative legal theories for recovery on the same underlying facts, rather than fundamentally altering the nature of the case. Cf. Patterson, 90 F.3d at 934 (<HOLDING>); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 952 F.2d 841, 846
holding that an employer in an employment discrimination case may not justify its conduct based on evidence that did not motivate it at the time of the employment decision holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii holding that defendants were not prejudiced by amendments to an employment discrimination claim because the original claim gave notice of the nature of the case holding that the most analogous claim for relief under new york law is a claim for employment discrimination holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim