Connection lost
Server error
PATTERSON v. AVERY DENNISON CORP. 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 plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim failed because her proposed male comparators were not “similarly situated.” The court also upheld the denial of a motion to compel a high-ranking executive’s deposition, citing the availability of less burdensome discovery methods.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a subordinate is generally not “similarly situated” to a supervisor for Title VII comparison purposes. Also affirms a court’s discretion to deny depositions of high-ranking executives when less burdensome discovery methods, like interrogatories, are available but unused.
PATTERSON v. AVERY DENNISON 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
Kim Patterson sued her former employer, Avery Dennison, for gender discrimination under Title VII after her termination. Her role on a temporary logistics task force was eliminated upon the project’s completion. Patterson recommended creating a new permanent logistics manager position, for which she was considered but not selected, as the company stated the role required more logistics experience. Patterson was subsequently terminated. To establish a prima facie case, Patterson alleged she was treated less favorably than two male employees, Steve Meyer and Dan Hillegonds. Meyer was Patterson’s supervisor on the task force, while Hillegonds was a manager in a different corporate division. During discovery, Patterson sought to compel the deposition of Thomas Miller, a high-ranking corporate vice president based 1,000 miles away, who had sent an email asking human resources to “take a second look” at Patterson’s situation. The district court denied the motion to compel and granted summary judgment for Avery, finding Patterson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the plaintiff establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination by showing she was treated less favorably than similarly situated male employees, and did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying her motion to compel the deposition of a high-ranking executive?
No. The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that 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 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 plaintiff establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination by showing she was treated less favorably than similarly situated male employees, and did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying her motion to compel the deposition of a high-ranking executive?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the stringent "similarly situated" standard in employment discrimination cases, 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 Rule
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas 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
Legal Analysis
The Seventh Circuit analyzed Patterson's Title VII claim under the McDonnell Douglas 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 cil
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination