Connection lost
Server error
Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film 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 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.
Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film 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
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
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
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