Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP WINS CLASS ACTION TRIAL AGAINST STANDARDIZED TEST ADMINISTRATOR FOR DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LEARNING DISABLED

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP scored a groundbreaking victory for young men and women with learning disabilities by winning a landmark class action trial in 2006 against the group that administers the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT).   The trial successfully challenged the group’s practice of denying testing accommodations to individuals with diagnosed disabilities on the basis that they had previously achieved high levels of academic success despite their disabilities and demonstrated need for accommodations.  The California Superior Court Judge, the Honorable Ronald M. Sabraw, found that this practice violated the California civil rights laws protecting people with disabilities.  On October 31, 2006, Judge Sabraw issued a comprehensive injunction requiring the group, known as the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), to revamp its accommodation review procedures.  Because the MCAT is similar in design to other standardized admissions tests, including the SAT and the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), the decision is expected to have a ripple effect across the testing industry. 

The case, Turner et. al. v. American Association of Medical Colleges, Case No. RG 04166148, was initially brought in 2004 by four college graduates with dyslexia and other learning disabilities who sought a medical education, but who were denied the accommodation of extra time on the MCAT.  The plaintiffs had graduated from top California Universities; some had already completed medical internships with great success.  They all had documented learning disabilities, which slowed their reading speed but did not interfere with their ability to retain and analyze medical information, or become competent doctors.  Nonetheless, the AAMC denied their requests for accommodations on the MCAT through form letters with little or no explanation.  This occurred despite the fact that each of the plaintiffs had extensive medical documentation of their disabilities and had been receiving accommodations in college and throughout their educational careers up until the MCAT.  The hostility faced from the AAMC was representative of the experiences of many other qualified learning disabled students who were being denied accommodations on the MCAT each year. 

The AAMC defended the case initially by attempting to erect procedural roadblocks.  It argued that the U.S. Constitution prohibited the application of state civil rights laws to organizations that do business in more than one state.  The Plaintiffs defeated this contention after a year of hard fought litigation.  The AAMC then argued that it did not have to comply with California civil rights laws because standardized exams were not “public accommodations” and the administrators of admissions tests could not be considered “business establishments.”  In September 2005, Judge Sabraw rejected these arguments, finding that “places of public accommodation” are not limited to physical places and that a testing service can be a “business establishment” by virtue of charging students money to take its tests.  Judge Sabraw also certified the case as a class action and expanded it to cover all disabled test takers in California.      

During the trial in June 2006, the Plaintiffs submitted extensive testimony challenging common misconceptions about learning disabilities.  The trial evidence showed that while a learning disability slows reading speed by impacting certain neurological pathways, the condition does not impair intelligence or the other cognitive abilities necessary to complete a medical education or become a successful physician.  During cross examination, AAMC’s witnesses came to agree that individuals with learning disabilities can succeed in the profession if given the opportunity, but that they simply need extra time on standardized tests to demonstrate their actual knowledge, skills and potential for success.  In fact, AAMC’s final witness at the end of the trial – the Director of the MCAT, Dr. Ellen Julian – eventually admitted that providing accommodations was not only legally mandated, but also “the right thing to do.”

AAMC also had defended its procedures by claiming that providing extra time to “I am thrilled with the Court’s decision,” said Brendan Pierce, one of the named plaintiffs in the case.  “Hopefully, the suspicion that I faced when I applied for accommodations on the MCAT will go away and people with learning disabilities will now be able to take the MCAT and other national tests on a level playing field with their non-disabled peers.”