In Lewis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 14-cv-01683 (D. Nev. Dec. 23, 2015), the district court adopted the broad interpretation of the crime-fraud exception articulated in Section 82 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers (2000), and held that the exception could apply where a lawyer’s services are used to further an intentional tort. In this wrongful termination case, plaintiff alleged that the employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating him for absences related to HIV-related illness. Plaintiff alleged that the employer’s articulated reason for termination – providing false information regarding hours worked – was itself pretextual and false. Plaintiff requested that the court review in camera withheld communications between the employer’s employees and in-house counsel to determine if the crime-fraud exception applied. The court granted the motion. The court explained that the crime-fraud exception is analyzed in two steps. The first step is to determine whether the moving party has presented a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that in camera review may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies. The court found that there were sufficient discrepancies in the evidence to suggest that the employer’s announced reason for the termination was false and that in-house counsel was consulted to further the pretext. The court then turned to the question whether the crime-fraud exception should be applied beyond instances of crimes or frauds, and extend to alleged intentional wrongful conduct under the ADA. Adopting the broad standard articulated in the Restatement and by several courts, the court held that the exception could apply where legal advice is obtained to conceal an employer’s true discriminatory intent and to make its decision appear legitimate.