Judge hears arguments on bar exam application suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

How far the Indiana Board of Law Examiners can go in asking potential lawyers about their mental-health history was the subject of a federal court hearing Wednesday, where attorneys explored the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act and what might be reasonable in determining someone’s potential fitness to practice law.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the state’s BLE both appeared before U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in Indianapolis in the case of Amanda Perdue, et al. v. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, No. 1:09-CV-0842. The two-year-old class-action suit boils down to accusations that certain questions on the state’s bar exam application violate the ADA because those inquiries treat certain applicants differently based on their mental-health history.

The plaintiffs are an Indiana woman who is 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 some law students say the could be impacted by the controversial questions.

This hearing had been continued from earlier in the summer, and Judge Pratt is determining whether to grant summary judgment for either side or if the case should proceed.

On one side, the plaintiffs focus on four specific questions that they contend are too broad and go beyond what the state should be asking about mental-health history as far as their childhood when only their current states should be considered in the context of conduct and character in practicing law. But the BLE argues that by simply asking these questions, the state is doing nothing wrong and not treating individuals differently; rather the process is gathering more information to determine if a potential concern exists that might impact a person’s ability to practice law.

Attorneys on each side disagree about key points in the case, from what the evidence proves about bar exam applicants’ impact from these types of questions to how the ADA sections apply or don’t allow the questions, and even whether someone can be injured simply by an entity asking about his or her mental illness. The lawyers also disagree on what caselaw from courts nationwide have decided on these issues.

“These questions go way too far and are invalid in all situations,” said the ACLU of Indiana’s legal director Ken Falk. “No jurisdiction in America has temporally open questions like these that Indiana demands answered by those who want to take the exam. And there is no case anywhere that upholds questions as broad and intrusive as this, and multiple ones that strike them down.”

Tony Overholt with Frost Brown Todd represents the BLE and told the judge that Title II of the ADA, which governs public agencies on these issues, allows the mental-health questions to be asked. Although Title I puts limitations on what can be asked by employers and doesn’t allow criteria or different procedures for those who might be disabled, Overholt said Title II doesn’t contain those same restrictions and only prohibits any specific discrimination based on a person’s disability. That is not happening here, he said.

Plaintiffs are mistaken in trying to claim that an actual injury occurs because of the questions being asked, and that only a flat-out rejection of someone who answers affirmatively on those questions would be an ADA violation, he said. Once a potential lawyer answers a question affirmatively, that person fills out a separate form detailing his or her mental-health history so that the BLE can do an individualized-assessment to determine if any possible concern is warranted.

No one has been denied application because of answering the question affirmatively, although the ACLU has included discovery showing that some applicants withdrew their names or didn’t take the bar exam as a result of these questions being asked. The lawyers on the case disagree about what the discovery shows – one side says it proves the questions are ADA violations because it’s restricting, while the other side contends it shows there’s a need to ask them and it’s not rejecting anyone based on their answers.

They disagree on what triggers an “injury” under the ADA, and they have different views on what’s considered reasonable and appropriate questions.

“Unless we categorically deny people based on their disability, we aren’t violating the ADA,” Overholt said. “When someone answers affirmatively, we do what the ADA tells us to and conduct an individualized assessment. No one is treating them as having a disability, we’re just seeking information and starting an interactive dialogue on this.”

Falk said that argument ignores the injury and belittles those who’ve experienced these “scary and demoralizing” mental-health issues and what they must go through just by disclosing these circumstances from their past.

“It is a big deal, and it’s not allowed by the ADA,” he said.

The ACLU wants the judge to declare that these questions violate the ADA, enjoin them from being asked on applications, and leave it open for the BLE to craft more narrow questions based on the various templates that exist nationwide. The state is arguing for summary judgment on the basis that these questions are necessary and reasonable.

Judge Pratt told the attorneys to expect a ruling on the summary judgment motions by the end of September. The previously-scheduled trial dates for November have been vacated.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?