Connection lost
Server error
Laura A. Makowski v. Smithamundsen 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: An HR Director told a terminated employee she was fired for being pregnant and taking FMLA leave. The court held this statement was an admissible admission by a party-opponent, not hearsay, reversing summary judgment for the employer on discrimination and FMLA claims.
Legal Significance: Clarifies the scope of FRE 801(d)(2)(D), holding that an agent’s statement concerns a matter within the scope of employment if their duties relate to the decision-making process affecting the adverse action, even without direct involvement in the final decision itself.
Laura A. Makowski v. Smithamundsen 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 Laura Makowski, a Marketing Director for the law firm SmithAmundsen, was terminated while on FMLA leave for the birth of her child. The firm’s all-male Executive Committee made the decision to eliminate her position during a retreat, citing a need for restructuring. The firm’s Chief Operating Officer then tasked Molly O’Gara, the Director of Human Resources, with consulting outside counsel regarding Makowski’s termination. O’Gara’s job responsibilities included ensuring the firm’s compliance with anti-discrimination laws and consulting on termination decisions. On the day of her termination, Makowski encountered O’Gara, who allegedly told her that she “was let go because of the fact that [she] was pregnant and … took medical leave.” O’Gara also allegedly mentioned a pattern of discrimination against other pregnant employees and advised Makowski to seek legal counsel. The district court excluded O’Gara’s alleged statements as inadmissible hearsay, finding O’Gara was not involved in the termination decision. Without this evidence, the court granted summary judgment for the employer on Makowski’s Title VII pregnancy discrimination and FMLA claims.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a statement by a Human Resources Director, who was not the final decisionmaker but was consulted regarding a termination to ensure legal compliance, admissible as a non-hearsay admission by a party-opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D)?
Yes. The HR Director’s statements were admissible as non-hearsay admissions by a 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 cupida
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
Is a statement by a Human Resources Director, who was not the final decisionmaker but was consulted regarding a termination to ensure legal compliance, admissible as a non-hearsay admission by a party-opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D)?
Conclusion
This case provides a key precedent for admitting statements by non-decisionmaker employees 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 i
Legal Rule
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D), a statement is not hearsay if 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
Legal Analysis
The Seventh Circuit's analysis centered on the proper interpretation of Federal 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 ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamc
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- HR Director’s statements about discriminatory reasons for termination are admissible against