Graham v. St. John's United Methodist Church 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: A custodian with a cognitive disability sued his church employer under the ADA. The court denied the church’s motion to dismiss, finding the custodian plausibly alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation after the church withdrew a previously provided accommodation and then terminated him.
Legal Significance: This case illustrates the application of the liberalized ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) pleading standards, clarifying that an employer’s unilateral withdrawal of a previously granted accommodation can sufficiently state a claim for failure to accommodate without a new interactive process.
Graham v. St. John's United Methodist Church 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
Richard Graham, who suffered permanent cognitive disabilities from a prior head injury, was employed as a custodian by St. John’s United Methodist Church. His disability caused difficulty with articulation, comprehension, and an acquiescent nature. His supervisor, Reverend Palmer, allegedly exploited this by forcing him to work unpaid hours and verbally harassed him, calling him “stupid” and “retard.” To accommodate his disability, Graham requested that two church members, the Holsmans, act as his advocates in employment matters, which the church initially permitted. Later, Palmer and the church refused to continue communicating through the Holsmans. The Holsmans then assisted Graham in filing complaints with the church’s governing conference and the Illinois Department of Labor regarding his treatment and unpaid wages. Shortly thereafter, Graham was discharged. Graham filed suit, alleging violations of the ADA, including discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. The church moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the plaintiff plead sufficient facts to state plausible claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Yes. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims for 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
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 the plaintiff plead sufficient facts to state plausible claims for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Conclusion
This case serves as a practical guide on pleading ADA claims post-ADAAA, 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 exerci
Legal Rule
Under the ADA, a plaintiff states a claim for failure to accommodate 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
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the sufficiency of Graham's ADA claims under the Rule 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court denied a motion to dismiss ADA discrimination and retaliation