Connection lost
Server error
Jarvis v. Potter 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 postal worker with PTSD was fired after several incidents where he instinctively struck coworkers. The court affirmed his termination, finding the employer reasonably concluded he was a “direct threat” to others and thus not a qualified individual protected by the Rehabilitation Act.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that an employer’s determination that an employee poses a “direct threat” under the Rehabilitation Act/ADA is reviewed for objective reasonableness based on the individualized evidence available to the employer at the time of its decision, without requiring an independent medical exam.
Jarvis v. Potter 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
Lanny Jarvis, a U.S. Postal Service custodian and Vietnam veteran, suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He informed his supervisor of his condition and his startle response. On separate occasions, he instinctively struck two coworkers, Cindy Frazier and Al Nielsen, when they startled him from behind. After the Nielsen incident, Jarvis described in a deposition that he was “ready to kill the guy” and only his training and a moment of clarity prevented him from inflicting serious harm. During a subsequent due-process meeting, Jarvis admitted his PTSD was worsening, he could “no longer stop the first blow,” and he could not safely return to work. He also provided a letter from his nurse practitioner which stated that due to the chronic nature of PTSD, his symptoms posed “some threat in the work place.” Based on these incidents, Jarvis’s own statements, and the nurse’s letter, the Postal Service terminated him for being unfit for duty and a danger to others. Jarvis sued, alleging discrimination for failure to accommodate his disability under the Rehabilitation Act.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Was an employer’s decision to terminate an employee with PTSD objectively reasonable under the Rehabilitation Act’s ‘direct threat’ defense, based on the employee’s history of violent reactions, his own admissions of dangerousness, and a letter from his medical provider confirming the risk?
Yes. The court affirmed summary judgment for the Postal Service on 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, c
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
Was an employer’s decision to terminate an employee with PTSD objectively reasonable under the Rehabilitation Act’s ‘direct threat’ defense, based on the employee’s history of violent reactions, his own admissions of dangerousness, and a letter from his medical provider confirming the risk?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the 'direct threat' defense in the Tenth Circuit, affirming 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 c
Legal Rule
Under the Rehabilitation Act, which incorporates ADA standards, an employer may defend 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 al
Legal Analysis
The court applied the "objective reasonableness" standard derived from *Bragdon v. Abbott* 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, con
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer’s determination that an employee with a disability poses a