ILNews

BLE suit moves forward

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even as the Indiana Board of Law Examiners searches for a new leader, a federal lawsuit remains pending against the state agency’s questions to prospective lawyers about their mental and emotional health.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in late December upheld the May ruling of Magistrate Judge William Hussmann that applicants’ privacy concerns outweighed the need for the BLE to obtain any additional mental health information in discovery. The judge and magistrate assignments have since changed, and Judge Pratt has been weighing that discovery issue for the past several months.

Filed in late 2009, the case of Amanda Perdue, et al. v. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, No. 1:09-CV-0842, boils down to accusations that the Indiana bar examination application violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because of certain mental health questions. The plaintiffs are Amanda Perdue, an Indiana resident who’s admitted to practice in Illinois but wants to practice in her home state, as well as the student ACLU chapter at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis where individuals could be impacted by the BLE’s questions.

Judge Pratt’s order Dec. 23 affirms what Magistrate Hussmann had decided earlier last year: that Perdue doesn’t have to answer specific interrogatories from the state BLE and that the board is barred from additional discovery on any of the anonymous class members.

Examining the magistrate’s order and the case at hand, Judge Pratt wasn’t persuaded by the board’s argument that it needs that information to determine whether Perdue is a qualified individual with a disability and constitutes a direct threat to public safety. The applicant has already provided a significant amount of information about her mental health history and that is good enough for the state’s analysis, the judge ruled.

This case is a facial challenge and not one that constitutes a “regarded as” claim, and Judge Pratt decided based on that she isn’t convinced the magistrate’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Previously, a status hearing was set for April and the court docket doesn’t indicate whether that remains scheduled now that Magistrate Mark Dinsmore has been assigned to the case. Currently, the state has requested that it have until Jan. 19 to file a motion for summary judgment and a response to the summary judgment motion filed by plaintiffs late last year. The extension is needed because BLE counsel took an extended holiday vacation and because of “the complex legal issues and important public policy implications raised by this case,” according to the filed motion.

This is the latest happening since early December, when the BLE’s executive director Linda Loepker resigned from her position unexpectedly. Neither the court nor Loepker has offered an explanation as to what caused the departure and none of the court filings indicate that her departure was connected to this litigation or that it has impacted its progress at this point.

BLE attorney Anthony Overholt with Frost Brown Todd declined to comment on the case progress in recent weeks and instead referred questions to BLE president Jon Laramore.

In an e-mail to Indiana Lawyer, Laramore wrote, “Linda Loepker's departure has not affected the litigation. The briefing will go forward on the schedule set by the court.”

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT