Carolyn Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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: An employer fired a skilled employee with OCD for attendance issues after an initial accommodation failed. The court reversed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the duty to accommodate is continuous and requires an ongoing interactive process when the first attempt is ineffective.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that an employer’s duty to engage in the interactive process under the ADA is a continuing obligation, not exhausted by a single, unsuccessful accommodation attempt. An employer must explore alternatives when an initial accommodation fails.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Carolyn Humphrey, a highly proficient medical transcriptionist for Memorial Hospitals Association (MHA), suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Her condition caused debilitating rituals that made her chronically tardy and frequently absent. After Humphrey received disciplinary warnings, MHA was formally notified of her OCD diagnosis by her psychiatrist, who suggested that a leave of absence might be necessary. MHA first provided a flexible start-time accommodation. When this proved ineffective and Humphrey’s attendance problems continued, she requested to work from home, an option available to other transcriptionists. MHA summarily denied this request, citing her prior disciplinary record for absenteeism—the very conduct caused by her disability. MHA did not suggest any alternative accommodations or re-engage in a dialogue about other options. Shortly thereafter, MHA terminated Humphrey for her continued attendance issues. MHA conceded that a leave of absence would not have posed an undue hardship and that it had a policy of granting such leaves.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did an employer violate the Americans with Disabilities Act’s reasonable accommodation requirement by terminating an employee for disability-related conduct after the initial accommodation proved ineffective and the employer refused to engage in an interactive process to find an alternative?
Yes. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the employer. 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
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did an employer violate the Americans with Disabilities Act’s reasonable accommodation requirement by terminating an employee for disability-related conduct after the initial accommodation proved ineffective and the employer refused to engage in an interactive process to find an alternative?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key precedent reinforcing that the ADA's interactive 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 aliqu
Legal Rule
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer has a mandatory 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 veli
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit's analysis focused on the employer's ongoing obligations under 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 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
- An employer’s duty to accommodate under the ADA is a **continuing