Stephanie Gambini v. Total Renal Care, Inc., D/B/A Davita, Inc. 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: Employee with bipolar disorder was terminated after an outburst. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court erred by not instructing the jury that conduct resulting from a disability is part of the disability under Washington Law.
Legal Significance: Established that under Washington Law, conduct caused by a disability is considered part of the disability itself, not a separate, legitimate basis for termination, aligning with ADA principles.
Stephanie Gambini v. Total Renal Care, Inc., D/B/A Davita, Inc. 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
Stephanie Gambini, employed by Total Renal Care (DaVita), experienced worsening bipolar disorder symptoms. She informed her supervisors about her condition and requested accommodations. During a meeting where she was presented with a performance improvement plan citing her “attitude and general disposition,” Gambini had an emotional outburst, using profanity and throwing the plan. The next day, she sought FMLA leave and was hospitalized, where her bipolar diagnosis was reconfirmed. While on provisionally approved FMLA leave, DaVita investigated the incident and terminated Gambini, citing her “violent outbursts.” Gambini sued under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and FMLA. At trial, Gambini’s proposed jury instruction stating that “Conduct resulting from a disability is part of the disability and not a separate basis for termination” (Prop. Instr. 26) was denied. The jury found for DaVita. Gambini appealed, challenging the jury instructions.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that, under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, conduct resulting from an employee’s disability is considered part of the disability and not a separate, permissible basis for termination?
Yes, the district court abused its discretion by refusing Gambini’s Proposed Instruction 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
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
Did the district court commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that, under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, conduct resulting from an employee’s disability is considered part of the disability and not a separate, permissible basis for termination?
Conclusion
This case reinforces that employers may be liable for disability discrimination if 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
Legal Rule
Under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, "[c]onduct resulting from the disability ... 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 repreh
Legal Analysis
The court reasoned that Washington Law, as interpreted by the Washington Supreme 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, consec
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Reversed (Washington Law): Failure to instruct jury that “conduct resulting from