PHILADELPHIA – A Pennsylvania group tasked with overseeing the Law School Admission Test has denied claims that it failed to provide a woman with impaired vision proper accommodations for taking the test, actions which would be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Jane Doe of Washington, D.C. first filed suit on her own behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 20 versus Law School Admission Council, Inc., of Newtown.
The plaintiff “seeks to retain her privacy interest in the details of her disability and need for testing accommodation” and “has expressed a legitimate fear of negative professional ramifications should her true name be associated with this litigation,” according to the suit.
“Law School Admission Council has been violating my rights for reasonable accommodation since 2008. My first settlement agreement with LSAC was in March 2015. I was one of many students in the class. LSAC agreed to stop violating the ADA and paid a million dollars to the students they harmed [in Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Law School Admission Council, Inc.]. After the first settlement agreement, I registered to take the LSAT, hoping LSAC would follow the settlement agreement and the 2015 Justice Department’s guidelines (the Justice Department fined LSAC for violating the ADA),” the suit said.
“However, once again, LSAC violated ADA and denied my accommodation request. I filed a lawsuit against LSAC, and I notified the Department Of Fair Employment and Housing about LSAC’s unlawful actions. The Department Of Fair Employment and Housing investigated and filed an injunction. The Department Of Fair Employment and Housing won their injunction and damages. Due to unlawful barriers by the District Court, I did not have the same access to the Court as the Department Of Fair Employment and Housing. Thankfully, the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] Third Circuit stopped the District Court’s unlawful actions, and I finally received justice in November 2019.”
The suit added that on Jan. 20, 2020, after winning the appeal in the related [Third Circuit] case Doe v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., LSAC quickly settled the case – but that allegedly due to the plaintiff’s disability and economic status, the LSAC was said to have violated the second settlement agreement by refusing to provide the agreed-upon accommodations of screen-reading software and an electronic/HTML version of the test.
“I was not allowed to use the screen reader that I was trained to use. I was ordered to buy a screen reader that was compatible with their non-electronic/HTML version of the LSAT. My expensive screen reader was compatible with LSAC’s electronic/HTML version of the LSAT only. That is why the electronic/HTML version of the LSAT was required for the settlement agreement. I was forced to take the test on April 9, 20221, without the non-electronic/HTML. The screen reader did not work properly. I started crying uncontrollably. I suffered a panic attack. All my hard work was wasted. I have been studying for the LSAT for 13 years. However, after the settlement agreement, I was studying for 25- 30 hours a week, I had an expensive tutor. I finally saw my dreams of becoming a lawyer coming true. While taking the test without the agreed-upon accommodations, all I saw was my dreams going up in smoke,” the suit stated.
“All my practice exams were on an electronic/HTML format. My screen reader would not work on the April 9, 2021 LSAT. I called an attorney from the Color of Law Center. The attorney said LSAC agreed to allow me to retake the LSAT on April 22, 2021 with more time as the ONLY option. Not the terms stated in the settlement agreement. With no choice, I was forced again to take the non-electronic/HTML format version of the LSAT on April 22, 2021. Going to court to enforce my settlement agreement would have taken too long. If I did not take the LSAT in April, I would miss the Fall 2021 law school admissions cycle. I had no choice. I retook the LSAT on April 22, 2021 without the agreed-upon settlement terms. My screen reader did not work properly and the extra time did not help. April 22, 2021 was worthless. This violation prevented me from enrolling in the Fall 2021 class.”
According to the plaintiff, the only way to enforce the settlement agreement was to sue the LSAC once again.
“All my attempts to enforce the settlement agreement fell on deaf ears; therefore, I was forced to pay the Color of Law Center $7,000 on April 29, 2021, to receive 1) The agreed-upon accommodation and 2) Removal of barriers by LSAC for additional accommodations. CLC handled all communication from LSAC from approximately April 2021-May 2022. Therefore, I am entitled to actual and punitive damages under the applicable civil rights laws,” the suit said.
Accompanying the lawsuit was a motion for the plaintiff to be permitted to proceed anonymously, out of fear for future professional retribution.
“The LSAT is required for admission to any ABA-accredited law school. Plaintiff, Jane Doe wishes to participate in this litigation anonymously. Jane Doe seeks to retain her privacy interest in the details of her disability and need for testing accommodation. Jane Doe has expressed a legitimate fear of negative professional ramifications should her true name be associated with this litigation. Plaintiff also has an interest in eliminating bias and enhancing diversity in the legal profession, and in furtherance of this interest, the testing process for entry into law school should not be an obstacle to the full and equal participation of individuals with disabilities in the legal profession,” the anonymity motion stated.
“Ensuring that law school admissions reflect the diversity of our society affects not only students with disabilities but also their would-be classmates, who benefit from the presence of those perspectives in the classroom. The legal profession as a whole, and the society which it serves, stand to be negatively affected by practices that result in the unfair exclusion of individuals with disabilities; therefore, a motion requesting the Court’s permission to proceed under a fictitious name for plaintiff Jane Doe is filed concurrently with this complaint.”
On June 16, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro approved the motion.
“Upon consideration of plaintiff’s motion to proceed under a fictitious name, it is hereby ordered that the motion is granted, without prejudice, to defendant’s rights to challenge the use of ‘Jane Doe’. Should defendant wish to contest the use of ‘Jane Doe’ to identify plaintiff, it may do so by filing a motion after it is served with the complaint and summons,” Quiñones Alejandro said.
UPDATE
In a July 19 answer to the complaint, LSAC denied the plaintiff’s allegations and provided affirmative defenses on its own behalf.
“It is not clear what legal claim(s) plaintiff intends to assert and LSAC therefore presently has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as to any affirmative defenses it may have available, but LSAC states that based on the current allegations, it appears that plaintiff may be asserting claim(s) that would be barred in whole or in part by one or more of the following affirmative defenses: (1) Waiver, (2) Release, (3) Accord and satisfaction and/or substituted contract, (4) Statute of limitations and (5) Failure to mitigate damages,” per those same defenses.
“LSAC reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery, further analysis, or future events indicate that additional unknown or unstated defenses are applicable.”
For violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• Compensatory damages in an amount no less than $100,000 that would fully compensate plaintiff for the loss of opportunity cost, humiliation, frustration, embarrassment, and emotional distress, that they have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the discriminatory conduct alleged herein;
• Actual and punitive damages to plaintiff in an amount to be determined by the jury that would punish defendant for the willful, wanton and reckless conduct alleged herein and that would effectively deter similar conduct in the future;
• An award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;
• Pre-judgment interest on any pecuniary awards provided;
• Such other and further relief to which plaintiff may show herself justly entitled.
The plaintiff is representing herself.
The defendant is represented by Matthew A. Lembo and Caroline M. Mew of Perkins Coie, in New York, N.Y. and Washington, D.C.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01540
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com