RASHDAN v. GEISSBERGER 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 dental student sued her university for national origin discrimination after a professor called her work “Third World Dentistry” and she was denied graduation. The court held she failed to prove discrimination because the comment targeted her work, not her origin, and she provided insufficient comparator evidence.
Legal Significance: The Ninth Circuit formally adopted the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for Title VI disparate treatment claims. The case clarifies the evidentiary standard for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination based on stray remarks and comparator evidence in an academic setting.
RASHDAN v. GEISSBERGER 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
Dalia Rashdan, an Egyptian dentist, was enrolled in a U.S. credentialing program at the University of the Pacific. Following an unsuccessful clinical procedure, a professor, Dr. Geissberger, told Rashdan her work was “Third World Dentistry.” When Rashdan confronted him, Geissberger asked where she was from and, upon learning she was from Egypt, debated with her whether Egypt was a “Third World” country but maintained the comment referred to the procedure. Another professor, Dr. Hakim, later referred to Rashdan as “TW” (“Third World”), and Rashdan subsequently signed an email to Hakim using the moniker “a.k.a. T.W.” Four days before graduation, the university informed Rashdan she would not graduate and must complete a remedial program due to clinically unacceptable performance and concerns for patient safety. Faculty emails discussed a “strategy” to ensure she could practice safely. Instead of pursuing the remediation plan, Rashdan filed suit, alleging national origin discrimination under Title VI. She presented evidence of other students’ grades, alleging they were similarly situated but treated more favorably.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a student establish a prima facie case of national origin discrimination under Title VI by presenting evidence of an offensive “Third World” comment directed at her work and a list of other students’ grades without contextual analysis?
No, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination 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 comm
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
Does a student establish a prima facie case of national origin discrimination under Title VI by presenting evidence of an offensive “Third World” comment directed at her work and a list of other students’ grades without contextual analysis?
Conclusion
This case establishes that the Title VII McDonnell Douglas framework governs Title 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
Legal Rule
The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to disparate treatment claims under Title 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 s
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit first joined its sister circuits in holding that the 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 e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Ninth Circuit formally adopted the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for