Connection lost
Server error
Nakashima v. Oregon State Board of Education 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: Oregon Supreme Court clarified the standard for “discriminatory in operation” under a state education anti-discrimination law, rejecting a de minimis burden test for policies adversely affecting religious observance in school activities, and remanding for application of a “reasonably necessary” standard.
Legal Significance: Establishes that Oregon’s education anti-discrimination statute (ORS 659.850) incorporates the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. “business necessity” (adapted as “reasonably necessary”) standard for disparate impact claims, not the Title VII religious accommodation/undue hardship framework.
Nakashima v. Oregon State Board of Education 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
Petitioners, Seventh-day Adventist student athletes and their parents, challenged the Oregon School Activities Association’s (OSAA) refusal to reschedule state basketball tournament games that conflicted with their Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). OSAA’s policy, while facially neutral regarding religion, effectively barred petitioners from full participation if games were scheduled during their Sabbath. OSAA denied their request for accommodation. Petitioners appealed to the Oregon State Board of Education (Board), arguing OSAA’s scheduling was discriminatory under ORS 659.850, which prohibits practices “fair in form but discriminatory in operation.” The Board, after a prior remand, applied a standard derived from federal employment law concerning religious accommodation: an accommodation was not required if it imposed an “undue hardship,” defined as more than a de minimis burden on OSAA. The Board found all proposed accommodations imposed such a burden and denied relief. The Court of Appeals again reversed, holding the Board applied the wrong legal standard. OSAA and the Board appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: What legal standard determines whether a facially neutral policy is “fair in form but discriminatory in operation” based on religion under ORS 659.850, which governs discrimination in state-funded school activities?
Affirmed. The Board of Education applied an incorrect legal standard. A policy 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 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
What legal standard determines whether a facially neutral policy is “fair in form but discriminatory in operation” based on religion under ORS 659.850, which governs discrimination in state-funded school activities?
Conclusion
This case establishes that disparate impact claims under Oregon's education anti-discrimination statute 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
Legal Rule
Under ORS 659.850(1), a facially neutral policy or practice that disparately impacts 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 reprehende
Legal Analysis
The Court determined the Oregon legislature, by using the phrase "fair in 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 est laborum. Lore
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- ORS 659.850’s “fair in form but discriminatory in operation” standard for