Connection lost
Server error
E.E.O.C. v. McLEOD HEALTH, INC. Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
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 required a long-tenured employee with a known mobility impairment to undergo a medical exam after several falls, ultimately firing her. The court reversed summary judgment for the employer, finding jury questions as to whether the exam was justified and whether the employee was qualified.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the ADA’s “business necessity” standard for mandatory medical exams, emphasizing that an employer’s belief must be based on objective evidence available before the exam, and that an employee’s long history of successful performance is a key consideration.
E.E.O.C. v. McLEOD HEALTH, INC. 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
Cecilia Whitten, an employee at McLeod Health for 28 years, had a congenital disability affecting her mobility, which caused her to fall occasionally throughout her life. Despite this, she satisfactorily performed her job as an editor for the company newsletter, which involved traveling between McLeod’s campuses. After Whitten fell three times in four months (only one of which occurred at work and resulted in no significant injury), her manager, who had also noted performance issues and perceived sluggishness, reported the falls. Based on this report, McLeod’s occupational health department required Whitten to undergo a fitness-for-duty exam to ensure she could travel safely. This led to a subsequent functional-capacity exam (FCE), which concluded she was a high fall risk. The FCE was based on flawed assumptions about her job duties, such as overestimating lifting requirements. McLeod determined that no reasonable accommodation would allow her to perform what it considered the essential function of traveling between campuses. After placing her on unpaid leave, McLeod terminated her employment. The EEOC sued on Whitten’s behalf, alleging an illegal medical exam and wrongful discharge under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted summary judgment to McLeod.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the employer violate the ADA by requiring an employee to undergo a medical examination where there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether mobility was an essential job function and whether the employer had a reasonable, objective belief that the employee posed a direct threat to herself?
Yes. The Fourth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that 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 fu
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 the employer violate the ADA by requiring an employee to undergo a medical examination where there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether mobility was an essential job function and whether the employer had a reasonable, objective belief that the employee posed a direct threat to herself?
Conclusion
This case serves as a critical reminder that employers must meet a 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 exerc
Legal Rule
Under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A), an employer may require an 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 mol
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on two key factual disputes that precluded summary 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 labo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer violates the ADA by requiring a medical exam unless