Connection lost
Server error
O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. 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: A 56-year-old employee was fired and replaced by a 40-year-old. The Supreme Court held that an age discrimination plaintiff does not need to show replacement by someone under 40 to establish a prima facie case, as long as the replacement is substantially younger.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the prima facie requirements for an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim, holding that the key factor is replacement by a “substantially younger” person, not necessarily someone outside the protected class, thus broadening the statute’s practical application.
O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers 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
Petitioner James O’Connor, age 56, was fired from his position at respondent Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. and replaced by a 40-year-old individual. O’Connor filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), alleging his termination was motivated by age discrimination. The District Court granted summary judgment for the employer. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that O’Connor could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. The Fourth Circuit’s precedent required a plaintiff to show, among other things, that he was replaced by someone of comparable qualifications outside the protected class. Because the ADEA protects individuals aged 40 and over, O’Connor’s 40-year-old replacement was still within the protected class. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that O’Connor had failed to satisfy the fourth element of his prima facie case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether replacement by a person outside the protected class is a necessary element of an ADEA claim.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Must a plaintiff alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) demonstrate that they were replaced by someone outside the ADEA’s protected class to establish a prima facie case of discrimination?
No. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit, holding that an ADEA plaintiff 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
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
Must a plaintiff alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) demonstrate that they were replaced by someone outside the ADEA’s protected class to establish a prima facie case of discrimination?
Conclusion
The Court's decision clarified that the essence of an ADEA disparate treatment 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 reprehe
Legal Rule
To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, 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 pari
Legal Analysis
Assuming the *McDonnell Douglas* burden-shifting framework applies to ADEA claims, the Court 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An ADEA plaintiff does not need to prove replacement by someone