Connection lost
Server error
Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp. 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: Former executives sued their employer alleging ADA violations and SOX whistleblower retaliation. The court largely denied dismissal, finding plaintiffs plausibly alleged disability under the ADAAA and protected whistleblowing activity under SOX occurring pre-termination.
Legal Significance: This case illustrates the ADAAA’s broadened definition of “disability,” including episodic conditions and severe temporary impairments, and clarifies that SOX whistleblower protection for reporting fraud extends to internal control deficiencies but is limited to pre-termination conduct.
Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp. 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
Plaintiffs Paul Feldman (President) and Martin Perry (Director of Sales), former employees and directors of Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA), alleged multiple claims following their terminations. They reported potential illegal export activities involving LEA and its founder, Carrington, to LEA’s Board and federal authorities. They also reported suspected insider trading. Subsequently, both plaintiffs experienced medical conditions: Feldman a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) and Perry a Multiple Sclerosis (MS) flare-up. They alleged LEA terminated Feldman after refusing to postpone a board meeting he couldn’t attend due to his TIA, and terminated Perry, claiming job abandonment, despite requests for medical leave for his MS. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for wrongful discharge and failure to accommodate, and under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) for whistleblower retaliation, among others. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Perry also claimed unpaid wages. Plaintiffs alleged their reporting of export violations, insider trading, and false SEC filings constituted protected activity under SOX, and that their medical conditions qualified as disabilities under the ADA, as amended by the ADAAA.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the plaintiffs plead sufficient factual matter to state plausible claims for relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended by the ADAAA, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, thereby surviving a motion to dismiss?
The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to 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
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 plaintiffs plead sufficient factual matter to state plausible claims for relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended by the ADAAA, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, thereby surviving a motion to dismiss?
Conclusion
This case underscores the ADAAA's significant expansion of disability protection at 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 labo
Legal Rule
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 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 e
Legal Analysis
The court applied the *Iqbal/Twombly* plausibility standard. For the ADA claims, 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 cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id es
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- ADA claims survived dismissal; ADAAA mandates broad disability definition, covering Perry’s