October Term 2002 · Docket 01-1435
Do shareholder-directors count as employees under the ADA?
The dispute centers on whether doctors who own and manage their clinic qualify as employees under federal disability law.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Seymour argued that the four doctors are not employees because they own the clinic.
Mr. Gornstein argued that the EEOC guidance determines whether directors are employees.
chief_justice_rehnquist_asked_about_common_law_rules_for_corporate_directors.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 3-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 3-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 21-22 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 21-22
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the definition of an employee under the Americans With Disabilities Act. It asks if professional partners who own a business are employees of that business.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-18
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 25, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 3-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 3-8
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to rule that shareholder-directors are not employees.
the opposing side wants the Court to rule that shareholder-directors are employees.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-18
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that owners who manage their own clinic are not employees.
the opposing side argues that the EEOC guidance controls the employee status determination.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-18
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked about the common law rule for corporate directors.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 21-22 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 21-22
Why it matters
This case defines who qualifies as an employee under federal disability law. It determines the scope of workplace protections for business owners.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-18
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 3-8 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 3-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 43, lines 21-22 — Transcript, file page 43, lines 21-22
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 9-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 9-18
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.