Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp. Case Brief

District Court, E.D. North Carolina2011Docket #2051066
779 F. Supp. 2d 472 24 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 749 18 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1100 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24994 2011 WL 891447

Audio lesson available for this case

LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.

Unlock with LSD+

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

4 min read

tl;dr: Former executives sued their employer alleging ADA violations and SOX whistleblower retaliation. The court largely denied dismissal, finding plaintiffs plausibly alleged disability under the ADAAA and protected whistleblowing activity under SOX occurring pre-termination.

Legal Significance: This case illustrates the ADAAA’s broadened definition of “disability,” including episodic conditions and severe temporary impairments, and clarifies that SOX whistleblower protection for reporting fraud extends to internal control deficiencies but is limited to pre-termination conduct.

Feldman v. Law Enforcement Associates 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

Plaintiffs Paul Feldman (President) and Martin Perry (Director of Sales), former employees and directors of Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA), alleged multiple claims following their terminations. They reported potential illegal export activities involving LEA and its founder, Carrington, to LEA’s Board and federal authorities. They also reported suspected insider trading. Subsequently, both plaintiffs experienced medical conditions: Feldman a Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) and Perry a Multiple Sclerosis (MS) flare-up. They alleged LEA terminated Feldman after refusing to postpone a board meeting he couldn’t attend due to his TIA, and terminated Perry, claiming job abandonment, despite requests for medical leave for his MS. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for wrongful discharge and failure to accommodate, and under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) for whistleblower retaliation, among others. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Perry also claimed unpaid wages. Plaintiffs alleged their reporting of export violations, insider trading, and false SEC filings constituted protected activity under SOX, and that their medical conditions qualified as disabilities under the ADA, as amended by the ADAAA.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the plaintiffs plead sufficient factual matter to state plausible claims for relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended by the ADAAA, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, thereby surviving a motion to dismiss?

The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to 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

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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 the plaintiffs plead sufficient factual matter to state plausible claims for relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended by the ADAAA, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, thereby surviving a motion to dismiss?

Conclusion

This case underscores the ADAAA's significant expansion of disability protection at 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 labo

Legal Rule

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 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 e

Legal Analysis

The court applied the *Iqbal/Twombly* plausibility standard. For the ADA claims, 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 cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id es

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • ADA claims survived dismissal; ADAAA mandates broad disability definition, covering Perry’s
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 cupidat

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial