case briefing assignment

Cintas Corp v. NLRB, 482 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

I have uploaded a sample brief of Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). You may look up this case by Googling the citation “524 U.S. 742” (Google Scholar works best). You can then see how a very lengthy case is summarized in a few paragraphs in a brief. For purposes of the Cintas assignment, all I need to see is what is listed on slide 11 of the first set of PowerPoints. Also, please note that the “Decision” item includes not only stating who won, but also how the court reached its decision – its reasoning. The court’s reasoning is probably the most important part of the brief because that is what we use to inform us as to how the court will rule when a case with a similar set of facts is presented to the court. One page is all it should take – perhaps a page and a half if you feel you need it.

Please understand that the Cintas case is edited – that is what is being signaled by “* * *” and by the bracketed item at the end of the case about the concurrence being omitted. It is not intended for you to find the unedited version of the case. Please work with the case in the book. If something is missing that you need for a complete brief, simply state that it is missing. Part of the intention of the exercise is to get you acquainted with the fact that these cases are edited. That is done because these cases frequently contain matters that were decided that have no relevance to the field of collective bargaining and it would be a waste of space in the book, and of the student’s time, to include them.

Please note that once I gave the complete citation for the Cintas case (always give the complete citation in proper form when you first cite the case, italicizing the caption – names of the parties - only), I then used an italicized abbreviation for the case when I subsequently referenced it. You may do this in your writings for this course as well. Just be sure to pick an obvious abbreviation that will distinguish the case. An example of a bad choice would probably be NLRB, in a course such as this, because many cases involve the NLRB as a party, whereas Cintas is far more unique. Another way to signal what you are doing for the abbreviated reference is by doing this: Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998) (hereinafter Ellerth). One more tidbit to keep in mind is that if Ellerth (the person) is discussed in your writing, then there is no italicization. The italics signal that you are discussing Ellerth (the case). For example, you might say, “The Ellerth court believed that Ellerth should have done more to avoid the difficult situation.”