Connection lost
Server error
Carolyn Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer fired a skilled employee with OCD for attendance issues after an initial accommodation failed. The court reversed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the duty to accommodate is continuous and requires an ongoing interactive process when the first attempt is ineffective.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that an employer’s duty to engage in the interactive process under the ADA is a continuing obligation, not exhausted by a single, unsuccessful accommodation attempt. An employer must explore alternatives when an initial accommodation fails.
Carolyn Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Carolyn Humphrey, a highly proficient medical transcriptionist for Memorial Hospitals Association (MHA), suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Her condition caused debilitating rituals that made her chronically tardy and frequently absent. After Humphrey received disciplinary warnings, MHA was formally notified of her OCD diagnosis by her psychiatrist, who suggested that a leave of absence might be necessary. MHA first provided a flexible start-time accommodation. When this proved ineffective and Humphrey’s attendance problems continued, she requested to work from home, an option available to other transcriptionists. MHA summarily denied this request, citing her prior disciplinary record for absenteeism—the very conduct caused by her disability. MHA did not suggest any alternative accommodations or re-engage in a dialogue about other options. Shortly thereafter, MHA terminated Humphrey for her continued attendance issues. MHA conceded that a leave of absence would not have posed an undue hardship and that it had a policy of granting such leaves.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did an employer violate the Americans with Disabilities Act’s reasonable accommodation requirement by terminating an employee for disability-related conduct after the initial accommodation proved ineffective and the employer refused to engage in an interactive process to find an alternative?
Yes. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the employer. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did an employer violate the Americans with Disabilities Act’s reasonable accommodation requirement by terminating an employee for disability-related conduct after the initial accommodation proved ineffective and the employer refused to engage in an interactive process to find an alternative?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key precedent reinforcing that the ADA's interactive Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqu
Legal Rule
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer has a mandatory Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate veli
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit's analysis focused on the employer's ongoing obligations under the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cil
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer’s duty to accommodate under the ADA is a **continuing