From the complaint (PDF) (via ABA Journal):
The plaintiff has well-documented, disabling neurological, emotional and learning disabilities. Despite his disabilities, he has a record of outstanding academic achievement, both undergraduate and graduate, in well-regarded, competitive educational institutions. His disabilities have been accommodated with a grant of 100 percent additional time (double time) on examinations by his current educational institution and by major testing services other than the Law School Admission Council. His treating psychiatrist, former treating psychologist and consulting neuropsychologists, among others, have recommended that he receive the same double time accommodation for the LSAT, without which he will be unable to perform in a way that reflects his knowledge and preparation. The Law School Admission Council has refused to grant more than 50 percent additional time, which has already been shown to be insufficient, and has failed to give any explanation for rejecting the recommendations of highly qualified clinicians...
Nathan sat for the December 2010 LSAT with 50% additional time, as approved by LSAC, despite his preparation experience suggesting that it was not adequate time...Nathan was unable to finish a significant portion of the test and was forced to select answers randomly for the unfinished portion...This experience confirmed for Nathan that time and a half was not a sufficient accommodation... Dr. Leimkuhler supported diagnoses of ADHD, Anxiety Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Dysthymic Disorder. He also found that Nathan met diagnostic criteria for learning disorders involving nonverbal processing, reading speed, production of written output and mathematics. Dr. Leimkuhler reported some measures falling in the 1st percentile or less and others falling in the 99th percentile...With respect to time, Dr. Leimkuhler concluded that “Nathan requires double time on all standardized tests, with extra corresponding break times.” ...After receiving Dr. Leimkuhler’s report, Nathan appealed the LSAT’s decision approving time and a half. He requested double time on all sections for a future LSAT examination.
In letters dated January 19, 2011 and January 26, 2011 the LSAC denied Nathan’s request for double time and confirmed its earlier decision to grant Nathan time and a half for the February 2011 LSAT examination. The LSAC gave no reason for rejecting the request.
In October, LSAC granted double-time to a test-taker with ADD: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=167667
LSAC has denied extra time to moms who wanted to pump breastmilk: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=167563