LSAC settles LSAT Disability Lawsuit Forum

[ScottRiqui]

The consent agreement makes it obvious that valid claims were denied.

Does it really, though? From the decree (emphasis added):

"Plaintiffs and LSAC agree that it is in the Parties’ best interests, the DFEH believes it is in the public interest of California, and the United States believes it is in the public interest, to fully and finally resolve this matter on mutually agreeable terms without trial of any issues of fact or law raised in any of the Plaintiffs’ complaints, and without resort to protracted litigation. Further, the Parties acknowledge and agree that there has been no adjudication as to the merits of any of the claims raised herein, and the fact that LSAC has entered into this Consent Decree should in no way be considered evidence of guilt or liability that it has violated the law in any way. "

[NYSprague]

The consent agreement makes it obvious that valid claims were denied.

Does it really, though? From the decree (emphasis added):

"Plaintiffs and LSAC agree that it is in the Parties’ best interests, the DFEH believes it is in the public interest of California, and the United States believes it is in the public interest, to fully and finally resolve this matter on mutually agreeable terms without trial of any issues of fact or law raised in any of the Plaintiffs’ complaints, and without resort to protracted litigation. Further, the Parties acknowledge and agree that there has been no adjudication as to the merits of any of the claims raised herein, and the fact that LSAC has entered into this Consent Decree should in no way be considered evidence of guilt or liability that it has violated the law in any way. "

Dude, that is standard language. It's just typical consent decree verbiage..The justice department doesn't rewrite an entire procedure unless they see major problems.

By the way,Two of the plaintiffs had vision issues.

Also LSAC is paying a fine, attorneys fees and compensation to those harmed. The compensation fund is 7.7 million.

[ScottRiqui]

The consent agreement makes it obvious that valid claims were denied.

Does it really, though? From the decree (emphasis added):

"Plaintiffs and LSAC agree that it is in the Parties’ best interests, the DFEH believes it is in the public interest of California, and the United States believes it is in the public interest, to fully and finally resolve this matter on mutually agreeable terms without trial of any issues of fact or law raised in any of the Plaintiffs’ complaints, and without resort to protracted litigation. Further, the Parties acknowledge and agree that there has been no adjudication as to the merits of any of the claims raised herein, and the fact that LSAC has entered into this Consent Decree should in no way be considered evidence of guilt or liability that it has violated the law in any way. "

Dude, that is standard language. It's just typical consent decree verbiage..The justice department doesn't rewrite an entire procedure unless they see major problems.

By the way,Two of the plaintiffs had vision issues.

Also LSAC is paying a fine, attorneys fees and compensation to those harmed. The compensation fund is 7.7 million.

Well, if you're claiming that a consent decree carries the same implications and legal weight as a verdict, even when it explicitly says it doesn't, I guess I don't have anything else to say. I guess there's no room in your philosophy for an organization preferring a settlement to a trial unless they know they're guilty/liable?

[NYSprague]

The consent agreement makes it obvious that valid claims were denied.

Does it really, though? From the decree (emphasis added):

"Plaintiffs and LSAC agree that it is in the Parties’ best interests, the DFEH believes it is in the public interest of California, and the United States believes it is in the public interest, to fully and finally resolve this matter on mutually agreeable terms without trial of any issues of fact or law raised in any of the Plaintiffs’ complaints, and without resort to protracted litigation. Further, the Parties acknowledge and agree that there has been no adjudication as to the merits of any of the claims raised herein, and the fact that LSAC has entered into this Consent Decree should in no way be considered evidence of guilt or liability that it has violated the law in any way. "

Dude, that is standard language. It's just typical consent decree verbiage..The justice department doesn't rewrite an entire procedure unless they see major problems.

By the way,Two of the plaintiffs had vision issues.

Also LSAC is paying a fine, attorneys fees and compensation to those harmed. The compensation fund is 7.7 million.

Well, if you're claiming that a consent decree carries the same implications and legal weight as a verdict, even when it explicitly says it doesn't, I guess I don't have anything else to say. I guess there's no room in your philosophy for an organization preferring a settlement to a trial unless they know they're guilty/liable?

I didn't say that at all. What I said was the procedure was so flawed the government told them what to do in extremely specific terms. They even have to submit to monitoring.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

I write this as a disability consultant for several testing organization, but NOT the LSAC. However, procedures are quite similar across these groups and I know several of the LSAC consultants.

Here's the problem: When we are talking about certain disabling conditions (blind, motor impairment, etc.) it is quite easy to discern whether an individual is disabled, and these requests are typically approved without issue. I strongly doubt that these individuals were involved in the suit; they received what they needed. The problem lies in the LD and ADHD cases, which account for a large majority of all requests. While it is true that many of these applicants have a history of past accommodations, often these accommodations were provided either in the absence of any evaluation (more commonly the case in private schools) or subsequent to an evaluation that was either equivocal in its findings or done inadequately or incompetently. This is especially true with ADHD-- I have seen a number of people whose 'documentation' accompanying their request was nothing more than a prescription pad on which the doctor has written "Mr. X has ADHD based on my evaluation on 3/13/2010". Within my profession this is very bad practice, yet many students have received accommodations from ACT, SAT, etc., based on such incomplete information. And now DOJ has said that this is entirely sufficient, and that there shouldn't be any further consideration of the merits of the request. In other words, rubber stamp the request as "Approved".

In my opinion this will further open the floodgates for unethical applicants (and health care providers) to buy and sell diagnoses. It's being done already, but this agreement between LSAC and DOJ makes it an even more obvious approach if one wants extra time.

Virtually everyone- disabled or not- taking the LSAC benefits from having extra time. Lots of data have shown this to be true. While the DOJ is acting on behalf of disabled people who feel they are being discriminated against, this agreement creates a new aggrieved class-- those who are not disabled and do not seek any accommodations, because they are now at a disadvantage due to all of the people who will be receiving an edge by receiving unwarranted and unneeded accommodations. I really think that the next step will be for a group of such nondisabled individuals to file their own class action suit claiming that their chance at a legal education is being adversely impacted by nondisabled people gaming the system (with DOJ's approval).

Exactly what I'm worried about. Within a major US city, how hard would it be to find a bent psychologist, and what would it cost?

The incentive to do this will be FAR higher on the LSAT than on the SAT/ACT etc. as time is significantly more important on the LSAT.

The LSAC could of course reformulate the test so that time was not a factor, but that would require throwing away 20 years of work, data and practice tests. And I wonder how they'd make it hard enough. They'd need to greatly up the difficulty of the current material once time was taken out. The cohort taking the LSAT is a very smart group.

[NYSprague]

I write this as a disability consultant for several testing organization, but NOT the LSAC. However, procedures are quite similar across these groups and I know several of the LSAC consultants.

Here's the problem: When we are talking about certain disabling conditions (blind, motor impairment, etc.) it is quite easy to discern whether an individual is disabled, and these requests are typically approved without issue. I strongly doubt that these individuals were involved in the suit; they received what they needed. The problem lies in the LD and ADHD cases, which account for a large majority of all requests. While it is true that many of these applicants have a history of past accommodations, often these accommodations were provided either in the absence of any evaluation (more commonly the case in private schools) or subsequent to an evaluation that was either equivocal in its findings or done inadequately or incompetently. This is especially true with ADHD-- I have seen a number of people whose 'documentation' accompanying their request was nothing more than a prescription pad on which the doctor has written "Mr. X has ADHD based on my evaluation on 3/13/2010". Within my profession this is very bad practice, yet many students have received accommodations from ACT, SAT, etc., based on such incomplete information. And now DOJ has said that this is entirely sufficient, and that there shouldn't be any further consideration of the merits of the request. In other words, rubber stamp the request as "Approved".

In my opinion this will further open the floodgates for unethical applicants (and health care providers) to buy and sell diagnoses. It's being done already, but this agreement between LSAC and DOJ makes it an even more obvious approach if one wants extra time.

Virtually everyone- disabled or not- taking the LSAC benefits from having extra time. Lots of data have shown this to be true. While the DOJ is acting on behalf of disabled people who feel they are being discriminated against, this agreement creates a new aggrieved class-- those who are not disabled and do not seek any accommodations, because they are now at a disadvantage due to all of the people who will be receiving an edge by receiving unwarranted and unneeded accommodations. I really think that the next step will be for a group of such nondisabled individuals to file their own class action suit claiming that their chance at a legal education is being adversely impacted by nondisabled people gaming the system (with DOJ's approval).

Exactly what I'm worried about. Within a major US city, how hard would it be to find a bent psychologist, and what would it cost?

The incentive to do this will be FAR higher on the LSAT than on the SAT/ACT etc. as time is significantly more important on the LSAT.

The LSAC could of course reformulate the test so that time was not a factor, but that would require throwing away 20 years of work, data and practice tests. And I wonder how they'd make it hard enough. They'd need to greatly up the difficulty of the current material once time was taken out. The cohort taking the LSAT is a very smart group.

You guys need to read the people they denied, one was a quadriplegic, who got limited accommodations. His hands are paralyzed.
Another guy had just been in a coma.
Someone else had severe pain from bone marrow transplants from leukemia.

They required excessive documentation which they then dismissed.

[LSAT Hacks (Graeme)]

You guys need to read the people they denied, one was a quadriplegic, who got limited accommodations. His hands are paralyzed.
Another guy had just been in a coma.
Someone else had severe pain from bone marrow transplants from leukemia.

I didn't say the LSAC was right. I've personally worked with people who were denied accommodations.

I'm saying, this decision is likely to have vast unintended consequences that have nothing to do with people who have disabilities.

[dresden doll]

I'm sorry, is there something in the consent decree to imply that, from here on out, frivolous disability claims will be accepted along with legitimate ones? Or is it just assumed by default that the possibility of reasonable accommodation automatically guarantees floodgates of easily accepted frivolous claims?

[NYSprague]

I'm sorry, is there something in the consent decree to imply that, from here on out, frivolous disability claims will be accepted along with legitimate ones? Or is it just assumed by default that the possibility of reasonable accommodation automatically guarantees floodgates of easily accepted frivolous claims?

Also, I'm not sure why people aren't more upset about the shoddy way LSAC treated people who had legitimate disabilities. The government seems very unhappy about it.

[DELG]

You know, no one in my 1L section got testing accommodations. It'll be interesting to see if that changes after LSAC policy changes.

[dresden doll]

Well, if you're claiming that a consent decree carries the same implications and legal weight as a verdict, even when it explicitly says it doesn't, I guess I don't have anything else to say.

What it explicitly says is that LSAC is admitting to no liability, which is totally and utterly standard for consent decrees. Any practicing litigator would confirm that defendants don't admit liability in consent decrees. Also, I don't understand how that's even relevant. The consent decree commits LSAC to complying with certain provisions; if they don't, they can find themselves in court yet again. What's the practical meaningful difference between a consent decree, the breach of which exposes you to a lawsuit, and a verdict?

[ScottRiqui]

I'm sorry, is there something in the consent decree to imply that, from here on out, frivolous disability claims will be accepted along with legitimate ones? Or is it just assumed by default that the possibility of reasonable accommodation automatically guarantees floodgates of easily accepted frivolous claims?

Part of the wording of the decree is that if a student has ever received extra-time accommodations on a standardized test, the LSAC now has to rubber-stamp approval for an equal or greater amount of extra time on the LSAT, up to double normal time. They may not request any supporting documentation at all, beyond proof that the student received the accommodations in the past and a "check box" affirmation from the student that they still suffer from the same condition.

So the concern is that LSAC has now essentially adopted the same policies regarding extra-time accommodations as the least-stringent of any of the other standardized tests.

[dresden doll]

I'm sorry, is there something in the consent decree to imply that, from here on out, frivolous disability claims will be accepted along with legitimate ones? Or is it just assumed by default that the possibility of reasonable accommodation automatically guarantees floodgates of easily accepted frivolous claims?

Part of the wording of the decree is that if a student has ever received extra-time accommodations on a standardized test, the LSAC now has to rubber-stamp approval for an equal or greater amount of extra time on the LSAT. They may not request any supporting documentation at all, beyond proof that the student received the accommodations in the past and a "check box" affirmation from the student that they still suffer from the same condition.

So the concern is that LSAC has now essentially adopted the same policies regarding extra-time accommodations as the least-stringent of any of the other standardized tests.

What are some of the examples of least stringent standardized exams and why should LSAT hold people to an exceptionally high standard?

[ScottRiqui]

Well, if you're claiming that a consent decree carries the same implications and legal weight as a verdict, even when it explicitly says it doesn't, I guess I don't have anything else to say.

What it explicitly says is that LSAC is admitting to no liability, which is totally and utterly standard for consent decrees. Any practicing litigator would confirm that defendants don't admit liability in consent decrees. Also, I don't understand how that's even relevant. The consent decree commits LSAC to complying with certain provisions; if they don't, they can find themselves in court yet again. What's the practical meaningful difference between a consent decree, the breach of which exposes you to a lawsuit, and a verdict?

Probably none - I'm just not a fan of NYSprague's attitude that settling a lawsuit necessarily validates the original claims in the lawsuit, especially when the decree explicitly says otherwise. It just smacks of an "only guilty people settle" attitude.

[ScottRiqui]

I'm sorry, is there something in the consent decree to imply that, from here on out, frivolous disability claims will be accepted along with legitimate ones? Or is it just assumed by default that the possibility of reasonable accommodation automatically guarantees floodgates of easily accepted frivolous claims?

Part of the wording of the decree is that if a student has ever received extra-time accommodations on a standardized test, the LSAC now has to rubber-stamp approval for an equal or greater amount of extra time on the LSAT. They may not request any supporting documentation at all, beyond proof that the student received the accommodations in the past and a "check box" affirmation from the student that they still suffer from the same condition.

So the concern is that LSAC has now essentially adopted the same policies regarding extra-time accommodations as the least-stringent of any of the other standardized tests.

What are some of the examples of least stringent standardized exams and why should LSAT hold people to an exceptionally high standard?

I'm not advocating for exceptionally high standards. As for less-stringent exams, there are people with FHE upthread who are saying that "diagnoses for hire" are very common on the SAT.

[dresden doll]

Well, if you're claiming that a consent decree carries the same implications and legal weight as a verdict, even when it explicitly says it doesn't, I guess I don't have anything else to say.

What it explicitly says is that LSAC is admitting to no liability, which is totally and utterly standard for consent decrees. Any practicing litigator would confirm that defendants don't admit liability in consent decrees. Also, I don't understand how that's even relevant. The consent decree commits LSAC to complying with certain provisions; if they don't, they can find themselves in court yet again. What's the practical meaningful difference between a consent decree, the breach of which exposes you to a lawsuit, and a verdict?

Probably none - I'm just not a fan of NYSprague's attitude that settling a lawsuit necessarily validates the original claims in the lawsuit, especially when the decree explicitly says otherwise. It just smacks of an "only guilty people settle" attitude.

Ah, that's fair. Settlements are frequently the best course of action for both sides, regardless of the merits of the suit.

I just think that, for practical purposes, it doesn't matter much whether this outcome results from a verdict or a consent decree.

[DELG]

If a lawsuit doesn't settle, it's because someone fucked up their valuation.

[NYSprague]

Well, if you're claiming that a consent decree carries the same implications and legal weight as a verdict, even when it explicitly says it doesn't, I guess I don't have anything else to say.

What it explicitly says is that LSAC is admitting to no liability, which is totally and utterly standard for consent decrees. Any practicing litigator would confirm that defendants don't admit liability in consent decrees. Also, I don't understand how that's even relevant. The consent decree commits LSAC to complying with certain provisions; if they don't, they can find themselves in court yet again. What's the practical meaningful difference between a consent decree, the breach of which exposes you to a lawsuit, and a verdict?

Probably none - I'm just not a fan of NYSprague's attitude that settling a lawsuit necessarily validates the original claims in the lawsuit, especially when the decree explicitly says otherwise. It just smacks of an "only guilty people settle" attitude.

I didn't say that at all. I said the procedure was so flawed the government had to spell it out for them. I'm shocked by how much change is mandated, down to the level of specifying website language.
If you don't think the government believed LSAC violated the AD A, I don't know what else to say.

[ScottRiqui]

I didn't say that at all. I said the procedure was so flawed the government had to spell it out for them.

I still think that "the consent agreement makes it obvious that valid claims were denied" is a little strong. That's making a judgement on the validity of the plaintiffs' claims, which the consent decree expressly doesn't do.

[dresden doll]

I didn't say that at all. I said the procedure was so flawed the government had to spell it out for them.

I still think that "the consent agreement makes it obvious that valid claims were denied" is a little strong. That's making a judgement on the validity of the plaintiffs' claims, which the consent decree expressly doesn't do.

Well, I think he's getting at the fact that LSAC agreed to some massive changes, which could be taken to mean that they felt that the court would ultimately have forced them to do all that if they'd continued, i.e. that the government clearly had greater bargaining power here. I can't comment on the dynamics of the lawsuit to that extent, and I doubt anyone ITT can, but that's not an unreasonable POV.

[ScottRiqui]

I didn't say that at all. I said the procedure was so flawed the government had to spell it out for them.

I still think that "the consent agreement makes it obvious that valid claims were denied" is a little strong. That's making a judgement on the validity of the plaintiffs' claims, which the consent decree expressly doesn't do.

Well, I think he's getting at the fact that LSAC agreed to some massive changes, which could be taken to mean that they felt that the court would ultimately have forced them to do all that if they'd continued, i.e. that the government clearly had greater bargaining power here. I can't comment on the dynamics of the lawsuit to that extent, and I doubt anyone ITT can, but that's not an unreasonable POV.

Well, I'm not wrapped around the axle about it. Truth be told, I agree that there were almost certainly valid claims that were denied. I just wasn't ready to throw away the wording of the consent decree as meaningless legal boilerplate and thereby use the decree as evidence that "this is obviously how it went down".

[NYSprague]

When this thread started I mistakenly thought LSAC had simply agreed to accepting previous accommodations and to no longer flag results. I didn't understand they agreed to government oversight of, and participation in, the disability process.

I didnt know they were paying a civil.penalty, attorney's fees and damages.

To me that sounds like a major issue, not simple fixes as I first thought.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[NYSprague]

Congrats on your great score.

The problem is denying people accommodations and flagging test scores violates federal law according to the government. I feel pretty angry that LSAC denied accommodations to people that deserved them. I pretty much feel law school is a mistake for most people, but I don't think people should be stopped from trying simply because they are disabled.

[ScottRiqui]

I think extra-time accommodations for ADD/ADHD are trickier than for other disabilities, and I can see the argument for declining accommodations for it in many cases, based on the wording of the ADA:

"failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor of such applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills of such employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure)."

Things like Parkinson's, blindness and dyslexia are obviously problems with "sensory, manual or speaking skills", and the ADA requires that testers don't receive a lower score just because they have problems getting the information from the test booklet into their mind, or getting their answers from their mind onto the answer sheet. But is ADD/ADHD really an "interface" problem like the ADA is describing, or is it a cognitive problem?