University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Galeas v. Law School Admission Council DR-TX-0002
Docket / Court 4:14-cv-00651 ( S.D. Tex. )
State/Territory Texas
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Case Summary
On March 14, 2014, a female student filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) and The American Bar Association (ABA). The student sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the ... read more >
On March 14, 2014, a female student filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) and The American Bar Association (ABA). The student sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title IX, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Representing herself, the student asked for injunctive relief and monetary damages for the alleged discrimination. Specifically, the student alleged that the defendants delayed and denied accommodation requests by the plaintiff, causing her to incur numerous fees and to miss administration of the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). She claimed this violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the other federal statutes she sued under.

The student claimed that she submitted numerous medical documents that attested to her Inattentive Type of ADHD and that both defendants failed to review the documentation so as to provide her with testing accommodation. She also claimed that her denial of accommodation was based on a test (the Woodcock Johnson assessment) that was not the preferred instrument listed in the LSAC guidelines. The student also alleged that the defendants' denial of necessary services and accommodations constituted discrimination based on sex as well as disability. She claimed that her male counterparts were given accommodations due to their Hyperactivity Type of ADHD, which can be diagnosed at a younger age and therefore provide more medical documentation.

The ABA filed a motion to dismiss due to a failure to state a claim. The ABA claimed no part in developing or administering the LSAT, nor involvement in the offer of accommodations for the test. As such, the ABA could not have been subject to the court's jurisdiction or able to provide redress. The LSAC also filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It stated that the plaintiff did not follow through on her claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; that the LSAC is not a state actor and therefore not subject to the Equal Protection Clause; that her allegations are insufficient for relief under Title IX, in part because LSAC was not alleged to be an educational program or a recipient of federal aid; and that Title III of the ADA does not provide for monetary damages.

On September 3, 2014, the Court (Judge Melinda Harmon) granted the LSAC's motion to dismiss. On September 22, 2014, the Court granted the ABA's motion to dismiss. These orders were both granted pursuant to joint stipulations of dismissal from the plaintiff and each defendant.

Carolyn Weltman - 10/26/2015


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Equal Protection
Disability
Mental impairment
Discrimination-area
Accommodation / Leave
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
General
Access to public accommodations - privately owned
Disparate Treatment
Education
Test or device
Mental Disability
Developmental disability without intellectual disability
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Race
Race, unspecified
Causes of Action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Defendant(s) American Bar Association (ABA)
Law School Admission Council (LSAC)
Plaintiff Description A female student diagnosed with Inattentive Type of ADHD
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted Moot
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Form of Settlement Voluntary Dismissal
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2014
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
4:14−cv−00651 (S.D. Tex.) 09/22/2014
DR-TX-0002-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Original Complaint 03/14/2014
DR-TX-0002-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order of Dismissal (LSAC) 09/03/2014 (S.D. Tex.)
DR-TX-0002-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order of Dismissal (ABA) 09/22/2014 (S.D. Tex.)
DR-TX-0002-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Harmon, Melinda (S.D. Tex.)
DR-TX-0002-0002 | DR-TX-0002-0003 | DR-TX-0002-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers LeRoy, Tracy N (Texas)
DR-TX-0002-9000
Suh, Eun Ae (Texas)
DR-TX-0002-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -