Bartlett v. New York State Bd. of Law Examiners
From Judgepedia
| Judge Sonia Sotomayor |
|---|
|
| Potential Obama nominees |
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Notable cases of Sonia Sotomayor |
| Coverage of confirmation hearing |
Contents |
Background
The plaintiff was a female doctor who completed law school and studied for the New York bar exam. However, she suffered from a reading disability--allegedly from her dyslexia--that made it difficult for her to take the normal bar exam under normal test conditions. The bar exam board would accomodate her, but only if the board's reading test determined that she was in fact disabled. The plaintiff took the reading test but did not qualify as having a reading disability. The plaintiff brought this case, arguing that she was disabled and was subject to accomodation under the ADA.[1]
ADA
The Americans with Disabilites Act (ADA) is a federal statute that prohibits discrimination against individuals on the basis of one's disability. One of the many requirements for filing a successful ADA case is determining whether the claimant (here, the plaintiff) was disabled. The ADA defines a disabled person as one who faces a substantial impairment of a major life activity, which could be many things. The statute lists many activities, such as breathing and walking, as major life activites. And over time, through amendments in Congress and case law in the courts, new activities have garnered an acceptance as major life activities. One of these is reading.[2] The Second Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Sotomayor, defined normal reading skills as a combination of two components: (1) Accuracy of word identification and (2) Automaticity - ability to "recognize[] a printed word and [to be] able to read it accurately and immediately; in other words, automatically and without [conscious effort]."[3] The plaintiff, however, did not meet the second component. Instead, she read "slowly, haltingly, and laboriously."[4]
Accommodation
The board's reading test, which was supposed to test reading ability and whether one qualified as disabled and was therefore worthy of accomodation, only recognized the first component and not the second. The court found the test to be inadequate and the plaintiff disabled and in need of accomodation for the bar exam. Although the plaintiff was academically accomplished, this did not bar her from disability coverage. As Judge Sotomayor writes: "[S]he should not be excluded from the protections of the Act because of accomplishments made despite her disability."[5]
External links
|
Notable cases of Judge Sonia Sotomayor |
|---|---|
| 1997 |
Bartlett v. New York State Bd. of Law Examiners (reversed) |
| 2001 |
U.S. v. Falcone • New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini (reversed) • Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko (reversed) |
| 2002 | |
| 2005 |
The European Community vs. RJR Nabisco (Supreme Court remanded back to the Second Circuit) |
| 2006 |
U.S. v. Giordano • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit (reversed) • Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh |
| 2007 |
Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (reversed) |
| 2008 |
Ricci v. DeStefano (reversed) |
