Connection lost
Server error
Leroy Gordon v. United Airlines, Incorporated 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 airline fired a probationary flight attendant for an “unauthorized deviation.” The court reversed summary judgment for the employer, finding the company’s inconsistent definition and application of the rule could allow a jury to infer the reason was a pretext for race and age discrimination.
Legal Significance: Demonstrates that an employer’s proffered reason for termination may be deemed pretextual where the underlying rule is ill-defined, inconsistently applied, and decision-making responsibility is unclear, thereby casting doubt on the employer’s honest belief in that reason and allowing a discrimination claim to survive summary judgment.
Leroy Gordon v. United Airlines, Incorporated 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
Leroy Gordon, an African-American probationary flight attendant over 40, was terminated by United Airlines. The precipitating event occurred when Gordon, on layover in Los Angeles, found his assigned hotel room unacceptable. He flew back to his home base in Chicago without prior authorization. Upon arrival, he spoke with a Crew Desk Supervisor, Henry Velasco, about his next scheduled flight out of Los Angeles. Gordon claimed he asked to be excused but offered to return if needed and believed he received permission. Velasco contended Gordon claimed he was unfit to fly due to lack of “legal rest.” Gordon’s supervisor, Gina Siemieniec, terminated him for committing an “unauthorized deviation,” a rarely used and undefined company violation. In making her decision, Siemieniec also considered prior performance issues that Gordon had been assured would not be part of his record. Evidence showed that the only other employee charged with “unauthorized deviation,” a white female, was not terminated. Other employees who missed flights were also treated less harshly. United’s managers provided conflicting definitions of what constituted an “unauthorized deviation.”
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can an employee in a discrimination case survive summary judgment by showing that the employer’s proffered reason for termination—violating a company rule—is pretextual because the rule is vaguely defined, inconsistently applied, and no manager claims responsibility for the decision to apply it?
Yes. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that Gordon 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 d
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
Can an employee in a discrimination case survive summary judgment by showing that the employer’s proffered reason for termination—violating a company rule—is pretextual because the rule is vaguely defined, inconsistently applied, and no manager claims responsibility for the decision to apply it?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key precedent illustrating that an employer cannot 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 d
Legal Rule
Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff can establish pretext by providing 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
Legal Analysis
The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to Gordon's race and 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 n
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Summary judgment for an employer is improper where a plaintiff raises