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