Case Brief Reflection (600 words)

Citation

Correct. All needed information is provided.

Proc History

The procedural history should show how the case got before the appellate court. You get almost there! But don't forget to say that the doctor appeals the district court decision.

Issues

There are three issues. Identify each issue and the relevant law under which the issue arises.

You have all three issues, and you are essentially right in all three, but remember that issues in appellate cases ask whether the lower court made the right decision on key legal questions. So, issue two is a little too broad--whether a retaliation claim under FCRA is barred by the Florida statute immunizing public hospitals from suit is closer. And the third is right but could be more precise--what is the law/claim under which the interference with an employment relationship concern arises? But, overall, very strong.

Facts

These are facts of the underlying dispute.

Remember that you are assuming the reader of the brief has not read the opinion and giving all the information needed to understand the case in a concise form. Staying objective is the goal here. That means you include all the facts relevant to the decision--those that suggest he is an employee and those that suggest he is an independent contractor, and you don't draw legal conclusions.

So, is it accurate to say the doctor did not claim the existence of an employment relationship? No. that was your issue number 1, wasn't it? Also, you aren't describing allegations or claims here, you are setting out facts in an objective manner. You leave the arena of facts here somewhat.

Rule

Ask yourself whether someone who never read the case decision would understand the rule from reading this section. Or would he or she just say, "Huh, that's a nice list of laws. I wonder what it has to do with this case."

You must set out the ADEA and FCRA first, then the tests that courts have created under those laws to determine employee status. And don't forget to lay out the rule for issues 2 & 3.

Holdings

The holdings should state what the court determined on the legal issues. Do you actually say in Holding #1 whether the doctor is an employee or an IC?

Holding #2 Do you say whether the doctor's retaliation claim is barred or not?

Holding #3 Do you say whether the doctor provided adequate evidence of an employment relationship?

State the holdings directly--answer the questions represented by the issues.

Reasoning

Don't just restate the holding. Give the facts and logic that the court thought were important to reach its conclusion. If there are three issues, three holdings, there should be three reasoning sections.

Outcome

Correct.

Notes

The notes were optional, but it's a great opportunity to reflect on the process and what you learned. They were optional (and do not affect your grade), but they are great to read.