On July 7, 2009, a member of the Illinois bar who sought to join the Indiana bar filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, under § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.), against members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners. The plaintiffs, who were represented by the ACLU of Indiana, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the state agency violated their rights by making unnecessary inquiries into mental health history and placing additional burdens on individuals with disabilities during the process of admission to the bar.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the application to the Indiana bar asks a number of intrusive questions concerning each applicant's mental health. If an applicant answers affirmatively to any of the questions, the applicant must disclose information about his or her mental health treatment and submit to further evaluation. The named plaintiff ("Jane Doe") had applied for admission to the Indiana bar. As part of her application, she disclosed that she had been diagnosed with an emotional disorder and was undergoing treatment. She provided further information at the request of the state bar, including a statement from an expert that the disability would have no relevance to her ability to practice law. She later withdrew her application before any determination was made by the state bar.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. On December 8, 2009, the court (Judge William T. Lawrence) denied the motion, finding the court to have jurisdiction over the claim. 2009 WL 4841113.

Although the plaintiff had initially filed the lawsuit under a pseudonym, the court denied her request to proceed with a pseudonym. 2009 WL 2448468. On January 27, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in which the ACLU of Indiana and the now named plaintiff sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals.

On January 29, 2010, the court entered an order regarding class certification. The court granted class certification with the individual plaintiff as class representative but denied the ACLU's request to act as class representative on the grounds that the court could not determine whether the ACLU had standing. 266 F.R.D. 215. On March 25, 2010, the court determined that the ACLU did have standing, and therefore granted a renewed request to be appointed class representative.

On June 25, 2010, the case was reassigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On September 20, 2011, Judge Pratt granted in part and denied in part the motions. 2011 WL 4387470. Specifically, she found that there was no dispute of fact that one of the three questions on the bar application violated the ADA. The parties agreed that in light of the summary judgment decision, that a final judgment from the court was appropriate.

On October 6, 2011, Judge Pratt entered a judgment permanently enjoining defendants from inquiring whether applicants had been diagnosed with or treated for "any mental, emotional, or nervous disorders." On June 21, 2012, Judge Pratt ordered the case to be closed after the parties filed a Joint Notice Concerning Settlement of Attorneys' Fee and Costs Claims. The Clearinghouse does not know how much the plaintiffs obtained in fees.

There was sporadic subsequent docket activity. In 2014 and 2018, an individual asked the court for relief from Indiana's alleged violations of the injunction. The court denied both motions, stating that in no circumstance could the individual be entitled to the relief requested. 2015 WL 5316967.

There has been no docket activity since May 9, 2019.

Priyah Kaul - 11/24/2014
Virginia Weeks - 03/16/2018
Hope Brinn - 04/09/2020


compress summary