From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...
Jarvis v. Potter
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
500 F.3d 1113 (2007)
Facts
Lanny Jarvis (plaintiff) was a Vietnam War veteran who suffered from post-traumatic-stress disorder (PTSD). Jarvis startled easily if someone came up behind him. Jarvis worked for the United States Postal Service (USPS) (defendant). On multiple occasions at work, Jarvis struck a coworker who had come up behind him. After one such occasion, he told a coworker that he might hurt someone, although he did not intend to. The USPS placed Jarvis on unpaid administrative leave, informing him that keeping him on the job might cause injury to others. Jarvis appealed the decision but stated during the appeal process that if he hit someone in the right place, he could kill the person. He also stated that his PTSD was getting worse. A letter from Jarvis’s doctor corroborated his worsening diagnosis. After interviews with the coworkers Jarvis struck, review of the doctor’s letter, and review of Jarvis’s statements at the appeal meeting, the USPS terminated Jarvis’s employment. Jarvis sued the USPS in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, claiming that the USPS had failed to reasonably accommodate his disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted the USPS’s motion for summary judgment. Jarvis appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hartz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 984 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.
