Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association

239 F.3d 1128 (2001)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Association

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
239 F.3d 1128 (2001)

  • Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD

Facts

Carolyn Humphrey (plaintiff) was a medical transcriptionist for Memorial Hospitals Association (association) (defendant). Humphrey exceeded the association’s standards for speed, accuracy, and productivity in her position. However, Humphrey eventually began arriving at work late or not at all. Humphrey also began engaging in obsessive rituals surrounding showering, hair brushing, and dressing. Humphrey’s process of getting ready was extremely long, and if any part of the process was disrupted or did not feel right, Humphrey felt compelled to start over from the beginning. Humphrey received multiple disciplinary warnings and was forced to begin counseling with the association’s Employee Assistance Program. After several appointments and minimal improvement, Humphrey requested to see a psychiatrist, and the association paid for an evaluation. Humphrey was diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), and her doctor submitted a letter to the association stating that the disorder contributed to Humphrey’s lateness and could be treated. The letter also stated that Humphrey might need a leave of absence for additional treatment. Humphrey met with association administrators, who set up a flexible start-time arrangement for her. However, Humphrey still missed work and asked to work from home like other association transcriptionists were doing. Humphrey’s request was denied because any employee with disciplinary actions was ineligible for working at home. Humphrey’s doctor later stated that working from home might have improved Humphrey’s condition. Humphrey’s performance evaluations indicated that absent her disability-related tardiness and absenteeism, Humphrey was a model employee. However, Humphrey continued to miss work and was terminated. Humphrey filed suit against the association for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted summary judgment for the association, finding that the association satisfied its duty to reasonably accommodate Humphrey’s disability.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Reinhardt, J.)

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 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership