Connection lost
Server error
POLLIS v. NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH 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 university forced a 70-year-old tenured professor to retire. The court dismissed her age discrimination claim, finding it was permitted by a statutory exemption, and denied an injunction on her sex discrimination claim because she failed to prove irreparable harm from the retirement.
Legal Significance: This case interprets the scope of the ADEA’s (now-expired) exemption for tenured faculty and, more importantly, illustrates the high bar for proving irreparable harm based on non-economic factors like emotional distress and loss of prestige to secure a preliminary injunction in employment discrimination cases.
POLLIS v. NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH 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
Plaintiff Adamantia Pollis, a tenured professor at The New School for Social Research, was informed by the university that she would be mandatorily retired when she turned 70, pursuant to a university policy and a temporary provision in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Pollis contended the retirement was illegal and applied for a full-time, non-tenured position for the following academic year. The New School rejected her application, stating she was ineligible for a full-time position post-retirement, but offered her part-time employment as an adjunct professor, which she accepted for one semester under protest. Pollis filed charges with the EEOC and subsequently sued the New School, alleging violations of the ADEA for both the forced retirement and the failure to rehire her. She also alleged sex discrimination under Title VII, claiming male professors were treated more favorably. Pollis moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent her retirement, while the New School moved for summary judgment on the ADEA claims. The court’s opinion addresses both motions.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s exemption for tenured faculty permit a university to both forcibly retire a professor at age 70 and refuse to rehire her into a full-time, non-tenured position, and does the resulting professional and emotional harm constitute irreparable injury warranting a preliminary injunction on a parallel Title VII claim?
The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ADEA claims 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 occaec
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
Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s exemption for tenured faculty permit a university to both forcibly retire a professor at age 70 and refuse to rehire her into a full-time, non-tenured position, and does the resulting professional and emotional harm constitute irreparable injury warranting a preliminary injunction on a parallel Title VII claim?
Conclusion
This case clarifies that the ADEA's former tenured-faculty exemption authorized a complete 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. Except
Legal Rule
Under the ADEA's temporary exemption, 29 U.S.C. § 631(d), an institution 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in two parts. First, it addressed the ADEA 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. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor inci
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The ADEA’s exemption for tenured faculty allows universities to compel retirement