Law School Admission Test (LSAT) in the United States

LSAT and Title III discrimination

According to William D. Goren (J.D., LL.M):

“Anybody that wants to go to law school must take the LSAT, law school admission test sponsored by the law school admission Council (LSAC) . The LSAT is a standardized test consisting of 100 multiple-choice questions ( Binno v. American Bar Association, 2012 WL 4513617, *1 (E.D. Mich. September 30, 2012)), divided into five sections labeled as either reading comprehension, analytical reasoning, or logical reasoning ( Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Law School Admission Council Inc., 2012 WL 4119827, *1 (N.D. Cal. September 18, 2012)). Approximately 1/4 of those questions are analytical reading questions or logic game questions. Binno v. American Bar Association, 2012 WL 4513617, *1 (E.D. Mich. September 30, 2012). (…)

If the person with a disability is truly prevented from demonstrating his or her abilities on the LSAT due to the nature of the test, then it would behoove that person to get in writing from one of the law schools that the reason they did not seek a waiver was the fear of sanctions. Alternatively, such a person would want to ask the law school to seek a waiver from the American Bar Association. Second, nothing in this case suggests that the regulations of the American Bar Association itself with respect to how they are set up for persons with disabilities in terms of accrediting law schools would not be subject to a challenge if those regulations were discriminatory. (…)

Third, if the regulations are discriminatory, the best approach for the plaintiff may be to sue the law school itself. If it is the regulations that are the problem, the law school been could then plead in the American Bar Association into that dispute.”

Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and Law Students with Disabilities

by Mike Rosen (2013)

Aspiring law students with disabilities fight for extra time to take the LSAT.

A case brought against the admission council by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) alleged discrimination against test takers with disabilities. Although the case originated in Alameda County, LSAC removed the litigation to federal court. (DFEH v. Law School Admissions Council, No. 12-CV-1830 (N.D. Cal.).)

The suit accuses the council of violating Titles III and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide legally required special accommodations, demanding excessive and burdensome documentation from test takers seeking accommodations, and when accommodations were provided, notifying law schools.

But the LSAC contends that giving some applicants extra time for the test skews the results and makes it less useful to law schools.

In October 2012, Judge Edward M. Chen allowed the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene in the case to try to establish a nationwide violation and seek nationwide remedies. A further pretrial conference is set for later this month.

Approximately 150,000 people take the LSAT every year. According to an LSAC report, the council received some 2,000 requests for special accommodations each year between 2000 and 2007, and it denied nearly half of them.

“The Law School Admission Test is the gateway to law school,” says Phyllis W. Cheng, director of the DFEH.
“Existing law entitles applicants with disabilities to testing accommodations so that they can compete on a level playing field to obtain a legal education.”

An LSAC spokesperson declined to comment on the case, and defense lawyers did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Test takers identified in the complaints had petitioned the LSAC for special accommodations on the basis of disabilities that include attention deficit disorder, nerve damage, learning disabilities, and carpal tunnel syndrome.

The DOJ complaint describes the council’s documentation requirements as “frequently onerous and unnecessary” and alleges that LSAC sometimes arbitrarily denies petitions or demands additional unspecified documentation. In addition, petitioners object to LSAC’s notification of law schools as to whether a test taker sought special accommodations – a practice, called “flagging.”

California recently banned flagging, and the LSAC sued to stop the law (AB 2122). “Multiple studies have shown that LSAT scores earned under accommodated testing conditions that include extra testing time are not comparable to LSAT scores earned under standard time conditions,” the council maintained in its complaint. “Scores achieved with extra testing time tend to over-predict how the examinee will perform in the first year of law school.” (Law School Admission Council v. State of Calif., No. 2013-00135030 (Sacramento Super. Ct.).)

That contention is “disputed by the ABA and by many scholars and experts,” according to an amicus brief by the Legal Aid Society’s Employment Law Center, which represents three named test takers who joined the disabilities lawsuit.

“For civil rights,” says Claudia Center, senior staff attorney for the Legal Aid Society in San Francisco, “it’s important that all groups be represented at all levels in the legal system.”