This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Steven W. Seymour, the case concerns whether the four shareholder‑directors of the petitioner’s gastroenterology clinic are employees for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The parties dispute whether corporate form should be ignored in determining employee status, with the petitioner arguing the directors are not employees and the respondent asserting the corporate entity is a separate legal person.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Steven W. Seymour, petitioner argues the four doctors who are shareholder‑directors own and manage their own clinic, so they are not employees under the ADA.
Petitioner contends that the corporate structure is a separate and distinct legal entity and should not be ignored in determining employee status.
Respondent Position
Respondent argues that the corporate form and structure should be ignored, citing precedent that a sole shareholder is separate and distinct from the corporation itself.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Breyer asked: “Neither, all right. Then write that section of the opinion.”
The Chief Justice asked whether a distinction should be made between owner‑directors who provide daily services and those who do not.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- be759a17b1eb92df563c-r1-3bedd2172453a4a9.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.