Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. 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 former employee, totally disabled by depression, sued under the ADA because her disability benefits were shorter than those for physical disabilities. The court held she was not a “qualified individual” able to perform her job and thus could not bring a claim under ADA Title I.
Legal Significance: The case establishes that under ADA Title I, a former employee who is totally disabled and unable to perform essential job functions is not a “qualified individual” and thus lacks standing to sue for discrimination in post-employment fringe benefits.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Helen Weyer, an employee of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (“Fox”), purchased a long-term disability insurance policy offered by Fox and administered by UNUM Life Insurance Company (“UNUM”). The policy provided benefits for physical disabilities until age 65 but limited benefits for mental disabilities to 24 months. Weyer became totally disabled due to severe depression and could no longer work. After receiving benefits for 24 months, UNUM terminated them based on the policy’s limitation for mental illness. Weyer sued Fox and UNUM, alleging the disparity in benefits between mental and physical disabilities violated Title I (Employment) and Title III (Public Accommodations) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as related Washington state statutes. Weyer conceded that she was totally disabled and could not perform the essential functions of her former job. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and Weyer appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a former employee who is totally disabled and unable to perform the essential functions of her job constitute a “qualified individual with a disability” with standing to sue an employer under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act for alleged discrimination in the terms of a long-term disability plan?
No. A totally disabled former employee who cannot perform the essential functions 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, conse
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 former employee who is totally disabled and unable to perform the essential functions of her job constitute a “qualified individual with a disability” with standing to sue an employer under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act for alleged discrimination in the terms of a long-term disability plan?
Conclusion
This decision solidified the majority circuit view that Title I of 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 re
Legal Rule
Under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a "qualified individual" 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 repr
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit joined the majority of federal circuits in holding that 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
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A totally disabled former employee is not a “qualified individual” under