Connection lost
Server error
Anderson v. Little League Baseball, Inc. 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 court enjoined Little League Baseball from enforcing a policy that barred a coach in a wheelchair from the on-field coach’s box. The court found the policy likely violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because it was a blanket rule based on stereotypes, not an individualized safety assessment.
Legal Significance: Establishes that under the ADA, a blanket exclusion of a person with a disability from a public accommodation is impermissible. Any exclusion based on safety concerns must be preceded by an individualized assessment of the specific risk posed by that individual, not based on stereotypes or generalizations.
Anderson v. Little League Baseball, Inc. 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
The plaintiff, a man who uses a wheelchair due to a spinal cord injury, had served as an on-field Little League base coach for three years without incident. The defendant, Little League Baseball, Inc., adopted a national policy prohibiting coaches in wheelchairs from being in the coach’s box, citing concerns for player safety. The policy was a blanket ban, not specific to any individual coach or field condition. While the plaintiff’s local league refused to enforce the policy during the regular season, the national organization threatened to revoke the local charter and tournament privileges if the policy was not enforced for the upcoming season-end tournament, for which the plaintiff had been selected to coach. The plaintiff filed for a temporary restraining order to prevent Little League from enforcing the policy, arguing it was discriminatory under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Little League did not contest that it was a “place of public accommodation” subject to the ADA.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a blanket policy by a place of public accommodation that excludes all individuals using wheelchairs from a specific activity, without an individualized assessment of risk, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act’s prohibition on discrimination?
Yes. A blanket policy excluding individuals with a specific disability, without an 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 occae
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 a blanket policy by a place of public accommodation that excludes all individuals using wheelchairs from a specific activity, without an individualized assessment of risk, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act’s prohibition on discrimination?
Conclusion
This case serves as a foundational application of the ADA's "direct threat" 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
Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, an entity may 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the "direct threat" exception within Title III 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 cons
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under the ADA, Little League is a “public accommodation” and cannot