Nakashima v. Oregon State Board of Education 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: Oregon Supreme Court clarified the standard for “discriminatory in operation” under a state education anti-discrimination law, rejecting a de minimis burden test for policies adversely affecting religious observance in school activities, and remanding for application of a “reasonably necessary” standard.
Legal Significance: Establishes that Oregon’s education anti-discrimination statute (ORS 659.850) incorporates the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. “business necessity” (adapted as “reasonably necessary”) standard for disparate impact claims, not the Title VII religious accommodation/undue hardship framework.
Nakashima v. Oregon State Board of Education 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
Petitioners, Seventh-day Adventist student athletes and their parents, challenged the Oregon School Activities Association’s (OSAA) refusal to reschedule state basketball tournament games that conflicted with their Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). OSAA’s policy, while facially neutral regarding religion, effectively barred petitioners from full participation if games were scheduled during their Sabbath. OSAA denied their request for accommodation. Petitioners appealed to the Oregon State Board of Education (Board), arguing OSAA’s scheduling was discriminatory under ORS 659.850, which prohibits practices “fair in form but discriminatory in operation.” The Board, after a prior remand, applied a standard derived from federal employment law concerning religious accommodation: an accommodation was not required if it imposed an “undue hardship,” defined as more than a de minimis burden on OSAA. The Board found all proposed accommodations imposed such a burden and denied relief. The Court of Appeals again reversed, holding the Board applied the wrong legal standard. OSAA and the Board appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: What legal standard determines whether a facially neutral policy is “fair in form but discriminatory in operation” based on religion under ORS 659.850, which governs discrimination in state-funded school activities?
Affirmed. The Board of Education applied an incorrect legal standard. A policy 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 c
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
What legal standard determines whether a facially neutral policy is “fair in form but discriminatory in operation” based on religion under ORS 659.850, which governs discrimination in state-funded school activities?
Conclusion
This case establishes that disparate impact claims under Oregon's education anti-discrimination statute 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
Legal Rule
Under ORS 659.850(1), a facially neutral policy or practice that disparately impacts 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 reprehende
Legal Analysis
The Court determined the Oregon legislature, by using the phrase "fair in 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 est laborum. Lore
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- ORS 659.850’s “fair in form but discriminatory in operation” standard for