Connection lost
Server error
Octavia O. Harriston, on Her Behalf and on Behalf of the Class of Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Chicago Tribune Company, a Corporation, Charles Brumback, President, John Sloan, Vice President 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: Employee alleged race and age discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of §1981 and IIED claims, and summary judgment for the employer on Title VII and ADEA claims, finding insufficient evidence of discrimination or intolerable working conditions.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the application of the “new and distinct relation” test for §1981 promotion claims (pre-Civil Rights Act of 1991) and reinforces the high threshold for proving constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress in employment discrimination contexts.
Octavia O. Harriston, on Her Behalf and on Behalf of the Class of Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Chicago Tribune Company, a Corporation, Charles Brumback, President, John Sloan, Vice President 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
Octavia Harriston, a Black woman, worked for the Chicago Tribune Company from 1965 to 1989. After several promotions, she became EEO/Employment Manager in 1984. This position was not eligible for the Management Incentive Fund. In 1987, after a new supervisor found her performance unsatisfactory, she transferred to Senior Sales Representative, a higher job grade with increased salary, but still not eligible for the Incentive Fund. Her successor as EEO/Employment Manager, a Black man, became eligible for the Fund after the position was restructured. Harriston received a “satisfactory” performance review as Senior Sales Representative but was criticized for sales levels. After her sales did not improve and she received a memorandum expressing displeasure, she resigned in 1989, alleging race and age discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge. She claimed, inter alia, denial of a promised promotion, exclusion from the Incentive Fund, and various forms of harassment. The district court dismissed her §1981 and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims and later granted summary judgment for the defendants on her Title VII and ADEA claims.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court err in dismissing the plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 failure-to-promote claim and her state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and in granting summary judgment for the defendants on her Title VII and ADEA discrimination and constructive discharge claims?
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s rulings. The §1981 claim 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 ani
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 district court err in dismissing the plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 failure-to-promote claim and her state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and in granting summary judgment for the defendants on her Title VII and ADEA discrimination and constructive discharge claims?
Conclusion
This case underscores the evidentiary burdens on plaintiffs alleging discrimination, particularly 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 com
Legal Rule
A promotion claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (pre-Civil Rights Act of 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 nostru
Legal Analysis
The court, applying *Patterson v. McLean Credit Union*, found Harriston's §1981 claim 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 ullam
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Court affirmed dismissal of § 1981 claim: alleged denied promotion did