Under the Commission on Disability Right’s (CDR) resolution the ABA urges entities that administer law school admissions tests to provide accommodations that best ensure that the skills of the test-takers are measured, and not their disabilities. It would further urge that the process for determining whether to grant an accommodation be made public; a decision on approving an accommodation be conveyed to the applicant within a reasonable amount of time; and that there be a fair appeals process for a denied accommodation. The resolution also urges testing entities to not flag scores that have received a disability-based accommodation.

Click here to download and read the rest.

The American Bar Association has sent a message to the Law School Admission Council that it’s not happy with that group’s handling of requests for special accommodations by takers of the Law School Admission Test.

The ABA’s House of Delegates voted unanimously on Feb. 6 to adopt a resolution urging the council to “ensure that the exam reflects what the exam is designed to measure, and not the test taker’s disability.” The vote came during the ABA’s midyear meeting in New Orleans.

The resolution called upon the council to make its policies clear to people with disabilities; to inform applicants of decisions in a timely manner; and to provide adequate time for appeals of denials of accommodations.

The delegates also took issue with a practice known as “flagging,” by which the council alerts law schools to applicants who have received extra time to complete the LSAT. The resolution was largely symbolic, as the ABA lacks power to compel the council to act.

The council responded that the resolution reflected an “oversimplification” of the factors that determine whether it grants “appropriate accommodations” to disabled test takers.

“In addition, [the council] believes that the ABA’s Commission and House of Delegates based their report and resolution on outdated, incomplete information that does not accurately reflect current practices and does not take into account the actual experiences of disabled test takers,” said council spokeswoman Wendy Margolis.

University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law professor Laura Rothstein, who previously has served on the council’s task force on disabilities, responded in writing to the resolution and urged caution. Some undergraduate institutions “overaccommodate” students, she wrote.

She defended “flagging,” saying the council’s analysts have concluded that “it is not psychometrically sound to report test scores of accommodated tests (extra time) as being comparable to those taken under standard conditions.”

Rothstein suggested that the ABA launch a joint task force with the council, the Association of American Law Schools and the National Conference of Bar Examiners to address the way the legal profession treats people with disabilities.

The council has been sued many times by test takers who were denied accommodations including extra time or a separate testing room. Disability advocates have criticized the council for policies that they say create barriers to the legal profession.

The latest such suit was filed on Feb. 3 by a 22-year-old University of Pennsylvania student who requested twice the standard time to take the LSAT. According to the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiff Scott Schlager has been diagnosed with a learning disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and has received accommodations throughout his academic career including extra time on tests, the use of a note-taker and a “reduced distraction test environment.”

According to his complaint, Schlager requested time-and-half — or the usual time plus 50 percent — to complete the Oct. 1, 2011, administration of the LSAT. Although his request was approved, Schlager was unable to complete even half the questions on some portions of the test and scored poorly.

He than asked for twice as much time to take the test on Dec. 3, 2011, but was informed that he had missed the deadline for such request. He again requested twice as much time for the Feb. 11 sitting, but was refused for all but one section of the test. He was granted the earlier accommodation of time-and-a-half to complete the other four sections.

His suit claimed discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act and asked the court to compel the council to provide the requested accommodation.

In December, the council was sued by New York state resident Lisa Rousso, who requested accommodations for what she claimed was a cognitive disorder that resulted from a brain lesion doctors removed in 2005. She sought extra time and rest breaks because she reads and writes more slowly as a result of her condition, according to her complaint.

The council denied her request, saying that the documents she submitted to support her claim did not meet requirements, said her attorney, JoAnne Simon.

On Feb. 7, Roussou finalized a settlement with the council that will provide her with double the standard time for the Feb. 11 sitting, Simon said. While it was a good result for her client, she said, the settlement came only after Roussou underwent an additional neuropsychological assessment to confirm her disability.

“The fact is, not everyone can do that,” Simon said. “These assessments are expensive.”

The council has reported that it receives requests for accommodations from about 2,000 people each year and makes decision on a case-by-case basis. About 50 percent of those requests are granted in some form. The most common accommodations are a separate testing room, extra time to take the test and extra rest time between sections of the test. People with learning disorders account for the single largest group of accommodation seekers.

The Law School Admission Council is no stranger to litigation over its testing policies. The organization has been sued numerous times by would-be takers of the Law School Admission Test who were denied accommodations for what they claimed were disabilities.

Now the American Bar Association’s Commission on Disability Rights has asked the council to change the way it handles requests for testing accommodations, to “ensure that the exam reflects what the exam is designed to measure, and not the test taker’s disability.”

That language came from a resolution the commission has drafted for a vote by the ABA’s House of Delegates during its midyear meeting in February. The document urges the council to remove communication barriers with accommodation seekers, change its rules regarding accommodations, and offer auxiliary aids and services to disabled test takers.

The resolution also calls upon the council to make its policies clear to those with disabilities, to give applicants decisions in a timely manner, and to provide adequate time for appeals of denials of accommodations.

“The testing process for law school admission remains an obstacle to the full and equal participation of individuals with disabilities in the legal profession,” the commission said in a report accompanying the resolution. “Students with disabilities are substantially underrepresented at law schools across the country.”

A number of other ABA sections, state bars and affinity bar groups support the resolution, including the Oregon State Bar, the State Bar of Wisconsin and the Utah State Bar.

The LSAC has taken no formal position on the resolution, but spokeswoman Wendy Margolis said it “appears to be based on misinformation or incomplete information.” No one from the commission contacted the council during the drafting process, Margolis said.

Even if the ABA adopts the resolution, it would be largely symbolic. The ABA has no authority to compel the council to act. However, the ABA’s Standards Review Committee — which is evaluating the ABA’s law school accreditation standards — is considering whether to drop a requirement that law schools consult the LSAT for admissions decisions.

Commission chair Katherine O’Neil said that members of the panel have had informal contact with LSAC administrators in hopes of persuading them to modify the process. Those efforts went nowhere, she said.

“As the chair of the Commission on Disability Rights, I can’t formally approach the board of the LSAC without this resolution in my hand,” O’Neil said. “This is just a way to have a pointed dialogue.”

One practice the commission hopes to see eliminated is that of “flagging” — noting to admissions officials when a test taker receives an accommodation. The administrators of the SAT and ACT eliminated flagging in 2003, concluding that accommodated test scores were comparable to non-accommodated scores, the commission’s report noted.

However, the LSAC’s research has shown that the scores of test takers who received accommodations are not comparable to scores of those who did not, Margolis said. Additionally, the council flags the scores only of people who receive extra time on the test, not of other forms of accommodation.

According to LSAC research, approximately 2,000 people apply for accommodations each year, and about 50 percent of those requests are granted in some form. The most common accommodations are a separate testing room, extra time to take the test and extra rest time between sections of the test. People with learning disorders account for the single largest group of accommodation seekers.

Better communication and more transparency are badly needed, said disability rights attorney Jo Anne Simon. She has assisted LSAT takers seeking accommodations for years, and now represents a New York state woman who was denied accommodations in a lawsuit against the LSAC. The client, Lisa Rousso, requested accommodations for what she claims is a cognitive disorder that resulted from a brain lesion doctors removed in 2005. She sought extra time and rest breaks because she reads and writes more slowly as a result of her condition, according to her complaint.

The council denied her request, saying that the documents she submitted to support her disability claim did not meet requirements, Simon said.

“There’s an issue with timeliness and also an issue with what they communicate and whether that is clear,” Simon said. “Sometimes, their rationale for believing you don’t have a disability can be lengthy. Other times, they give you no rationale. That seems inconsistent.”

Sometimes those explanations come after the deadline for the test sitting people are seeking accommodations for, and sometimes applicants are simply referred back to the guidelines posted on the LSAC’s Web site — even though they believe they have already met those guidelines, Simon said.

“There is almost a Kafkaesque circuitry here,” she said. “I don’t think it should be a mystery how to get accommodations. It shouldn’t be confusing.”

The LSAC responds to the requests for accommodation received by the published deadline within two weeks, Margolis said.

O’Neil said that she knows of no opposition to the commission’s resolution and expects it to pass.

Lisa Rousso wiped away tears as she spoke to CBS 2′s Jennifer McLogan on Wednesday.

Click here to watch the CBS interview.

Rousso suffers from a cognitive disorder. She had planned to take the Law School Admissions Test, more commonly known as the LSAT, on Saturday.

“It’s something I’m very, very passionate about. I have to overcome this hurdle to do it”, said the 41-year old wife and mother of three.

Rousso’s disability stems from a brain lesion that was surgically removed six years ago. In an attempt to get more time to take the test Rousso provided the Law Council with medical documentation of her condition and the risky operation that she underwent to have the lesion removed.

“I’ve been working like crazy to prepare for this test between prep courses, studying on my own in the library, doing everything I can to be fully prepared,” she said. “What I asked for is basically extended time on the test. Due to the surgery, my processing speed is significantly slower.”

But just days ago the Law Council denied Rousso’s request on the grounds that “her condition would likely improve.”

Rousso said that without the additional three hours to take the test, she will not be able to handle all of the reading and writing, and that she will fail. Rousso has hired an attorney and the two have filed the suit.

If Rousso’s lawsuit is denied and she is not granted the extra time on Saturday, she is seeking a full $263 application refund from the LSAT council.

Ruosso claimed that she isn’t seeking a leg up; she simply wants a level playing field and a chance to realize her dream.

“I want to practice special ed law — it’s my background as a school psychologist. It’s what I did before I got sick. I want my children to see, when you work hard it pays off, that there is justice.”

A spokeswoman for the Admissions Council, which runs the LSAT, told CBS 2 that it does not comment on lawsuits.

Lisa Rousso of Fort Salonga, New York, filed a 20-page complaint in Brooklyn federal court on Monday against the Law School Admissions Council, which administers the Law School Admissions Test, or LSAT.

Rousso first took the LSAT during the 1989-1990 school year and attended Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles from 1990 to 1991, after which she left her studies, according to the complaint. The following year Rousso sat for the LSAT again, and was given extra time to complete the exam after she presented a doctor’s note regarding “a gunshot wound to the arm,” the complaint said.

She did not return to law school following the second exam.

In the suit filed Monday, Rousso, 41, claims that she suffers from a cognitive disorder stemming from the removal of a brain lesion in 2005, which causes her to read and write more slowly.

In denying her extra time to take the LSAT, the admissions council is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law, the lawsuit says.

“I’m frustrated and I’m angry,” Rousso said in an interview. “I did my end of what was required, and I feel like they’re not doing theirs.”

LSAC spokeswoman Wendy Margolis said the council does not comment on lawsuits.

‘OPEN TO TALKING’

Rousso seeks a court order ensuring that she be given six hours to take the exam, which is normally administered in three hours. She is also requesting additional time for rest breaks between each of the test’s five sections.

“These accommodations are necessary in order to make the [examination] accessible to Plaintiff because of her disability,” the complaint said.

Rousso also seeks compensation for her legal fees and the cost of taking the LSAT.

Jo Anne Simon, Rousso’s lawyer, said she is in contact with LSAC’s attorneys, who she said are “are open to talking about it.”

Simon said it has become harder to get accommodations for a disability than it was when Rousso was granted extra time in 1992. “At that time, she provided the doctor’s note and it was no big deal,” she said. “The demands have gotten greater.”

According to the LSAC website, prospective test-takers seeking accommodations for a cognitive or psychological impairment must include the results of “psychoeducational/neuropsychological testing” and a “full diagnostic report.”

After Rousso submitted her application for an accommodation in early October, LSAC informed her that her neuropsychological evaluation “did not meet the requirements” of the guidelines, and later demanded that she undergo “additional neuropsychological testing,” according to the complaint.

“My client submitted everything she had to [LSAC} and met their requirements,” Simon said in an interview.

Margolis declined to comment on LSAC’s policy for accommodating disabilities.

OTHER LITIGATION

LSAC has been sued before by candidates seeking accommodations for disabilities.

In 2009, the National Federation for the Blind sued the council for allegedly discriminating against blind law-school applicants by failing to make its website and LSAT-preparation materials accessible to the blind. Last April, LSAC settled that case, agreeing to make its website more accessible to the visually impaired.

In June, a Wesleyan University senior with attention deficit disorder sued LSAC for denying her double the usual time to complete the LSAT. That case is pending in federal court in the Southern District of New York.

(Reporting by Moira Herbst)

A Fort Salonga woman who says she has a brain disorder that causes her to read and write slowly has filed a federal lawsuit against administrators of the law school entrance exam, saying she has been denied additional time she needs to take the test.

Lisa Rousso, 41, filed suit Monday in federal court in Brooklyn, saying the Pennsylvania-based Law School Admissions Council refused to provide accommodations for her disability that would allow her to take the Law School Admission Test on Saturday at Farmingdale State College.

Rousso said she has a cognitive disorder stemming from a brain lesion that was surgically removed in 2005.

In an interview, Rousso said she had provided medical documentation in October that her disorder is irreversible.

She said the Law School Admissions Council told her, through her attorney, that they had reviewed the documents and believed her condition likely would improve.

“I was kind of blown away because I thought, ‘Are you kidding me? Do you know more than my doctors know?’ ” Rousso said. The council did not interview her or dispatch doctors to examine her, she said.

A spokeswoman for the admissions council, which runs the exam, known as the LSAT, said the council does not comment on lawsuits.

Rousso is asking the court for an order allowing her an additional three hours to take the three-hour exam, plus extra rest breaks during the test.

She also seeks compensation for about $8,000 she has spent on fees to take the exam and legal expenses, said her attorney, Jo Anne Simon of Brooklyn. The LSAT costs $263, which includes exam fees and preparation of law school applications.

“The law requires that it be fairly administered and equitably administered,” Simon said.

Rousso, a married mother of three boys, said her disorder causes severe fatigue. She said she could not complete sample exams during LSAT preparation courses.

“My processing is much slower than it ever was,” she said. “It’s like when somebody has to repeat something to you over and over — that’s what it’s like to me.”

Rousso, president of the Kings Park Council of Schools, an umbrella group of parent-teacher organizations, said LSAT administrators first said they did not receive medical reports after she mailed her exam application in October.

“They waited weeks to tell me they didn’t have it,” she said, adding that she supplied another copy.

This podcast features a conversation with attorney Jo Anne Simon on how, specifically, these new rules will impact students with LD. Ms. Simon has over 30 years of experience working with the disability community and has helped create the field of post-secondary disability services by working at the grassroots and organizational level. Ms. Simon has worked for effective implementation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act since its enactment in 1990, and before that with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Listen and learn:

• How and why changes were made to the fundamental definition of disability included in the ADA

• How Section 309 of Title 3 of the ADA covers courses and testing, like the SAT and the ACT

• How the overlap between IDEA and ADA Section 504 protects students in similar ways but for different reasons

• How the new regulations may impact the amount of documentation that testing entities ask for when students request an accommodation on tests such as the SAT or the ACT

In her testimony before the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in support of the Amendments. JO Anne’s testimony focused on education and “high-stakes” standardized testing. She testified that the ADA has been so narrowly applied as to ensure that almost no one was protected, leading to anomalous results.

In amending the Act, Congress rejected several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that had narrowed the law’s applicability and created unrealistically high barriers to coverage. As Jo Anne stated in her testimony, “the ADAAA will do no more than protect those Congress originally intended to protect.” Bartlett v. NYS Board of Law Examiners was specifically cited as illustrative of Congressional intent. No longer will individuals with impairments “be penalized when seeking protection under the ADA simply because he or she managed their own adaptive strategies or received informal or undocumented accommodations that have the effect of lessening the deleterious impacts of their disability.” See Page H8291. ada-amendments-act