Connection lost
Server error
HARRISON v. BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS HUNTSVILLE, INC. 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 subjected a job applicant to disability-related questions after a positive drug test revealed medication for epilepsy. The court held that even non-disabled applicants can sue for improper medical inquiries under the ADA and that the questioning here could be found unlawful, reversing summary judgment.
Legal Significance: This case established in the Eleventh Circuit that a private right of action exists under ADA § 12112(d)(2) for improper pre-employment medical inquiries, regardless of the applicant’s disability status. A non-disabled plaintiff must still prove they suffered damages from the unlawful inquiry.
HARRISON v. BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS HUNTSVILLE, 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
John Harrison, a temporary employee at Benchmark Electronics Huntsville, Inc. (BEHI), applied for a permanent position at his supervisor’s request. Harrison has epilepsy, which he controls with prescribed barbiturates. As part of the application process, he took a mandatory drug test, which came back positive for barbiturates. His supervisor, Don Anthony, was notified of the positive result. Anthony then brought Harrison into his office and was present during a phone call between Harrison and a Medical Review Officer (MRO). During this call, the MRO asked Harrison about his medical condition, medication, and dosage, forcing Harrison to disclose his epilepsy. Anthony overheard the entire conversation. Shortly after the MRO cleared the drug test result, Anthony instructed human resources not to extend a job offer to Harrison. BEHI later terminated Harrison’s temporary assignment, citing performance issues and alleged threats, which Harrison disputed. Harrison sued, alleging, among other things, that BEHI conducted an improper medical inquiry in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted summary judgment to BEHI.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a job applicant, regardless of disability status, bring a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act when an employer’s follow-up questions to a positive drug test exceed the scope of verifying a lawful prescription and become a prohibited disability-related inquiry?
Yes. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that 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 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
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 job applicant, regardless of disability status, bring a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act when an employer’s follow-up questions to a positive drug test exceed the scope of verifying a lawful prescription and become a prohibited disability-related inquiry?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies in the Eleventh Circuit that the ADA's prohibition on 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 v
Legal Rule
A job applicant has a private right of action for a prohibited 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
Legal Analysis
The Eleventh Circuit first established a private right of action under § 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 an
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: The Eleventh Circuit recognizes a private right of action under
