Connection lost
Server error
Cindy Akers v. Donald Alvey and Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children 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: A state employee sued her supervisor for sexual harassment and her employer for retaliation. The court held the supervisor’s pervasive conduct could constitute the tort of outrage, but the employer’s alleged retaliatory harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to be actionable under Title VII.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a supervisor’s cumulative pattern of harassing acts, viewed in their totality, can satisfy the high ‘outrageousness’ standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Affirms the Sixth Circuit’s requirement that retaliatory harassment must be ‘severe or pervasive’ to be actionable under Title VII.
Cindy Akers v. Donald Alvey and Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children 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
Cindy Akers, a family services worker for the Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children, alleged that her supervisor, Donald Alvey, engaged in a pervasive pattern of sexual harassment over a two-and-a-half-month period. The alleged conduct included lewd gestures, daily comments about her body, intrusive questions about her sex life, and using her computer to send sexually explicit emails. Akers documented over 30 such incidents. After she filed an internal complaint, the Cabinet investigated for two weeks, found the claims unsubstantiated, but immediately removed her from Alvey’s supervision. During this two-week investigation, Akers alleged Alvey retaliated by ignoring her, encouraging coworkers to ostracize her, withholding her mail, and criticizing her work. Akers was later transferred to another office with no change in pay or duties and a shorter commute. She eventually resigned, citing antagonism in the new office, and sought counseling for depression. The Cabinet later declined to rehire her, citing negative recommendations from multiple former supervisors and coworkers, including Alvey.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a supervisor’s cumulative pattern of sexually harassing conduct be sufficiently ‘outrageous’ to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and does retaliatory conduct that is not ‘severe or pervasive’ constitute an adverse employment action under Title VII?
Yes, a supervisor’s cumulative conduct can be sufficiently outrageous for an IIED 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
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
Can a supervisor’s cumulative pattern of sexually harassing conduct be sufficiently ‘outrageous’ to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and does retaliatory conduct that is not ‘severe or pervasive’ constitute an adverse employment action under Title VII?
Conclusion
This case illustrates that a pattern of conduct can satisfy the high 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 labori
Legal Rule
Under Kentucky law, a claim for the tort of outrage (IIED) requires 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 de
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis distinguished between the tort claim against the supervisor and 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Tort of Outrage: A supervisor’s cumulative pattern of sexual harassment can
