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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT