By Thomas Franz
BridgeTower Media Newswires
DETROIT, MI — Following a settlement between a blind law school applicant and the Law School Admission Council, the format for the analytical reasoning section of the Law School Admission Test will change within four years.
Plaintiff Angelo Binno has been involved with this case since 2011. When he signed up to take the LSAT, his request to waive the analytical reasoning section of the test was denied by LSAC.
His lawsuit claimed that LSAC violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act by denying his requested waiver.
“(Binno) was really stymied by the logic games section of the LSAT,” said plaintiff’s attorney Jason M. Turkish of Nyman Turkish PC in Southfield. “This case stood for the proposition that it’s simply unfair and discriminatory to judge a blind person’s aptitude for the study of the practice of law by asking them to do something they physically can’t do.”
A second individual, Shelesha Taylor, was also listed as a plaintiff in the case.
Turkish explained that for decades, it was understood that the LSAT was an inappropriate exam to administer to a blind individual.
To level the playing field, Turkish said law schools granted waivers from their admissions requirements that included an LSAT score.
That changed in 1996, when the American Bar Association changed accreditation rules and told law schools that if they were to waive the test, they could lose accreditation.
“That path closed for blind applicants, so they were forced to take this exam the last 20 years, and it’s been a major hurdle and obstacle,” Turkish said.
The analytical reasoning, or logic games, section of the LSAT provides room in the test booklet to diagram and draw pictures to help solve questions. Without the ability to diagram or draw, Turkish said the nature of the exam changes.
“You’re no longer being tested on what your peers are being tested on. It’s not about your ability to quickly analyze information, it’s now testing your short-term memory abilities. It’s not treating these folks on a level playing field at all,” Turkish said.
Binno’s original case against the ABA in 2011 argued that accreditation rules violated the ADA by forcing law schools to administer a discriminatory test.
“The client had a very specific interest in this case, which was not just to have a remedy for him, he wanted to change the game for blind applicants nationwide,” Turkish said. “From the get-go, that made it more challenging since this wasn’t going to be a small settlement, it was going to be a big settlement or victory.”
That initial case was ultimately dismissed in federal court.
In 2017, Binno and Turkish revived the case by filing the suit against LSAC rather than the ABA.
“The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was not unsympathetic to Angelo. They simply felt, and they wrote about it in the majority opinion, that his claims should be brought against the test creator,” Turkish said.
Turkish said the case against LSAC turned toward a settlement based on the “simple truth” that it would be hard to prove that asking a blind person to draw a diagram is acceptable.
“There’s certainly room for good lawyering on both sides. There’s room to argue about standing and who the proper party defendant is, but at the end of the day, I don’t think there was room to get up in federal court and argue that Binno should be judged on his ability to diagram and draw pictures,” Turkish said.
On his strategy for the case, Turkish said his message was consistent in arguing that the current test is corrosive to the justice system.
“This test decides who is part of the game and who isn’t. It decides who’s going to be the lawyers and judges,” Turkish said. “The decision to raise the stakes and say this is about more than just Binno, it’s about basic access to the courts and our justice system, really helped us in litigating this case and reaching a profound resolution that doesn’t just apply to Binno or anybody who’s blind.”
While the settlement is subject to a confidential agreement, the parties announced that within the next 48 months, there will be an exam available to all test takers that doesn’t have the current analytical reasoning section.
“That’s a huge sea change,” Turkish said. “We’re respectful that redesigning the test is not an overnight process, but for the first time, we have a path forward. There is light at the end of the tunnel and certainty that folks who are blind are going to be able to apply to law school and they’ll be judged on their aptitude for the study and practice of law, not on their ability to draw diagrams.”
Following the release of the settlement, LSAC President and CEO Kellye Testy issued a statement about the case.
“Diversity and equal opportunity are vital in legal education and the legal profession,” Testy said in a press release. “To help promote those goals, LSAC is committed to ensuring that disabled individuals can take our exam in an accessible place and manner, that the LSAT is fair for all test takers, and that we support everyone interested in pursuing law school. We greatly appreciate the willingness of Mr. Binno and Ms. Taylor, and their attorneys, to work collaboratively with LSAC to resolve their concerns.”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel also released a statement on the case.
“This announcement is a major victory for the blind and visually impaired communities and reinforces the importance of resiliency in the face of adversity,” Nessel said. “Equal rights for all who live in this state and this nation isn’t just common courtesy, it is the law — everyone is to be treated with fairness and equality.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/subscriptions
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
