ILNews

ACLU sues State Board of Law Examiners

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The ACLU of Indiana has filed a lawsuit against the members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, alleging the state's bar examination application violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The suit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, claims the application discriminates against some applicants because of perceived mental impairments by asking intrusive questions about an applicant's mental health, including whether or not he or she has been diagnosed with any mental, emotional, or nervous disorders.

If an applicant answers yes, they are required to complete another form with detailed information. It is then reviewed by State Board of Law Examiners members who determine whether further information or medical records are needed to assess the person's fitness to practice law in Indiana.

This is an issue that has been raised in three or four other states either in bar or medical licensing applications, said ACLU of Indiana Legal Director Ken Falk. He said the states' Supreme courts found ADA violations.

According to the application, the information is treated confidentially and the purpose is to determine fitness of the applicant to practice law. It also states the fact of treatment for mental health problems or addictions isn't in itself a basis for denying an applicant admission to the bar.

The suit was filed on behalf of Porter County resident Jane Doe, and others similarly situated. Doe is a member of the Illinois bar and an Indiana law school graduate who in order to practice here must take the bar exam. She has been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder and receives counseling. Doe hasn't seen any impairment in her ability to function in law school and since graduation because of her disorders. She applied for the bar in the fall of 2008. She answered the questions regarding her mental health status truthfully, upon which the members of the State Board determined she had to contact the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a thorough review of her mental heath records and an evaluation. She then withdrew her application.

The suit argues Doe and others who have been diagnosed with various disorders are subjected to unnecessary and intrusive inquires into their mental health histories and have additional burdens imposed upon them. Doe wants to apply again in February 2010 but doesn't want to have to produce her medical records and be interviewed by JLAP.

The suit, Jane Doe, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, in their official capacities, No. 1:09-CV-0842, seeks class action status and asks the court to enter a declaratory judgment that the board violated the ADA. It also asks the court enter a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from asking the class any questions solely concerning past or present mental health diagnoses or treatment, and from preventing the board from discriminating against the plaintiffs because of those diagnoses.


Falk wasn't sure how long the mental health questions had been included in the application, but he said it had just been redone and the questions were kept in the revision.

Both the State Board of Examiners and Attorney General said they couldn't comment on the pending litigation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT