Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Gambini v. Total Renal Care, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
486 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2007)


Facts

In November 2000, Gambini (plaintiff) began working at DaVita, a dialysis center, which was owned by Total Renal Care, Inc. (DaVita) (defendant). Several months later Gambini, who had a prior history of medical problems, began suffering from depression and anxiety. In April 2001, Gambini had an emotional breakdown at work. A mental-health professional told Gambini her symptoms indicated bipolar disorder. Gambini began seeking medical treatment and taking medication to control her mood swings. Gambini returned to work, where she informed two supervisors and other coworkers about her condition and ongoing treatment. A year later, Gambini’s bipolar symptoms—including emotional outbursts, unpredictability, irritableness, distraction, and difficulty focusing on job tasks—grew worse. Gambini’s supervisors met to discuss this behavior and ultimately decided to draft a performance-improvement plan for Gambini. When they met with Gambini to give her the plan, Gambini began crying, shaking, and experiencing shortness of breath. Gambini threw the plan across a desk, used profane language, and slammed the door as she left. Gambini was fired several days later. She then wrote a letter to DaVita explaining that her volatile behavior at the meeting was due to her bipolar disorder and asking to be reinstated. When her request was refused, Gambini sued DaVita for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The district court denied Gambini’s request for a jury instruction that “conduct resulting from a disability is part of the disability and not a separate basis for termination.” The district court granted summary judgment for DaVita. Gambini appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Shadur, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.