Robert E. Maddox, III v. University of Tennessee University of Tennessee Board of Trustees Doug A. Dickey 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: An assistant football coach, fired after a highly publicized DUI arrest, sued his university for disability discrimination. The court held that the termination was lawful because it was based on the employee’s criminal misconduct, not his underlying disability of alcoholism.
Legal Significance: Establishes that under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, an employer may discipline an employee for misconduct, even if that misconduct is causally related to a disability. The law protects an individual’s status, not their disability-related misconduct.
Robert E. Maddox, III v. University of Tennessee University of Tennessee Board of Trustees Doug A. Dickey 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 Robert Maddox was hired as an assistant football coach by the University of Tennessee (UT). On his application, he falsely stated he had no prior arrests, despite three previous arrests, including two for DUIs. Shortly after beginning his employment, Maddox was arrested again for DUI and public intoxication. The incident, which involved combative behavior and lying to the police, was highly publicized and caused embarrassment to the university. After the arrest, Maddox entered an alcohol rehabilitation program. UT’s athletic director, Doug Dickey, and head coach, Johnny Majors, terminated Maddox’s employment. They cited the criminal misconduct, the resulting negative publicity, and their belief that he was no longer qualified to serve as a coach and role model for players. Maddox filed suit under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging he was terminated because of his disability of alcoholism. The district court granted summary judgment for UT.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May an employer terminate an employee for criminal misconduct that is causally related to the employee’s disability of alcoholism without violating the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Yes. The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that an 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
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
May an employer terminate an employee for criminal misconduct that is causally related to the employee’s disability of alcoholism without violating the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Conclusion
This case establishes a clear precedent in the Sixth Circuit 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. D
Legal Rule
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer may hold an employee 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 re
Legal Analysis
The court explicitly rejected the Second Circuit's reasoning in *Teahan v. Metro-North*, 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer can terminate an employee for egregious misconduct, even if