Lysak v. Seiler Corp.

614 N.E.2d 991 (1993)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
L
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lysak v. Seiler Corp.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
614 N.E.2d 991 (1993)

SR
Play video

Facts

Patricia Lysak (plaintiff) applied for a position as a marketing director for the Seiler Corporation (Seiler) (defendant). In February 1987, Lysak interviewed with William Zammer, the president of Seiler. Lysak was pregnant at the time of the interview, but her pregnancy was not discussed. According to Zammer, Lysak voluntarily stated during the interview that she was not planning to have more children. Zammer did not solicit this information. Lysak was hired and soon thereafter informed Zammer that she was pregnant. Zammer later testified that he would have hired Lysak even if he knew that she was pregnant but felt betrayed by Lysak’s misrepresentation regarding her intention to have more children. Zammer told Lysak that he could no longer trust her. Lysak soon thereafter suggested that Seiler terminate her employment so that she could continue working as an independent contractor. Zammer agreed, and Lysak’s employment was terminated. Lysak later sued Seiler, alleging that Seiler had terminated her employment because she was pregnant. The jury found in favor of Seiler. Lysak appealed, arguing that she was entitled to a directed verdict and that the trial court had failed to instruct the jury that Seiler could not terminate her employment based on a misrepresentation concerning her pregnancy.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, 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

Casebooks

Employment Law

Key Terms