[Nyabs] Fwd: FW: Ninth Circuit Decision in ENYART v. NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR EXAMINERS

[Kate Carroll]

Hey NYABS-ers,

I hope you are all enjoying your break, and the beginning of a wonderful new
year.

Below is a news tidbit I thought might be good to share. Some of you may
have heard about the Enyart v. National Conference of Bar Examiners case if
you are on the NABS listerserv, Basically a legally blind student is suing
this Board for not allowing her to use her usual testing accommodations
(JAWS and ZoomText) to take the Bar exam, the test you need to take after
you finish law school in order to be allowed to practice law. There was a
positive development in the case yesterday - Ms. Enyart is to be allowed to
use her usual accommodations while the court case proceeds... Below is a
description of the case, if you are interested, from an email I received
from the American Bar Association Committee on Mental and Physical
Disability Law....

Best,
Kate

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lissner, Scott <Lissner.2 at osu.edu>
Date: Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:13 PM
Subject: FW: Ninth Circuit Decision in ENYART v. NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR
EXAMINERS
To: CMPDL-3D at mail.abanet.org


*From:* Lissner, Scott
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:12 PM
*To:* bod at ahead-lists.org
*Subject:* Ninth Circuit Decision in ENYART v. NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR
EXAMINERS



Today the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s preliminary Injunction
in Enyart v. National Conference of Bar Examiners.  I thought you might
appreciate a quick summary along with a link to the decision.



In short, Stephanie Enyart, a legally blind law school graduate, sought to
take the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) and the
Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) using a computer equipped with JAWS (voice output
software) and ZoomText(screen enlargement software) a combination she had
used throughout law school. The State Bar of California allowed Enyart’s
request but the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) refused to allow
it on the MPRE and MBE, claiming that providing digital versions would
create test security issues.  As an alternative they offered to provide a
human reader, an audio CD of the test questions, a Braille version of the
test, and/or a CCTV with a hard-copy version in large font with white
letters printed on a black background.  Enyart declined this counter offer
stating that it would not allow her independently take the test or to
synchronize the audio and visual inputs effectively and canceled her
registration.  Enyart sued NCBE under the Americans with Disabilities Act
seeking injunctive relief. The District Court issued preliminary injunctions
requiring NCBE to allow Enyart to take the exams using the assistive
software, and NCBE appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s
decision to grant the preliminary injunction requiring NCBE to permit Enyart
to take the MBE and MPRE using a laptop equipped with JAWS and ZoomText
while her original complaint is being decided.  The results of the MPRE and
the MBE taken with these accommodations will be held until Enyart’s original
case claiming these are reasonable accommodations and any appeals are
decided (or NCBE concedes the case).   The full decision can be found at
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/04/10-15286.pdf



*Scott*

* *

* *

* *

*L. Scott Lissner, Ohio State University ADA Coordinator, *

*Office Of Diversity And Inclusion*
  Associate, John Glenn School of Public Affairs
  Lecturer, Knowlton School of Architecture, Moritz College of Law &
Disability Studies

  President Elect & Chair, Public Policy Committee, Association on Higher
Education And Disability

  Chair, ADA-OHIO
  Member,  Ohio Governor's Council For People With Disabilities

  Member, Columbus Advisory Council on Disability Issues



(614) 292-6207(v); (614) 688-8605(tty) (614) 688-3665(fax);
Http://ada.osu.edu <http://ada.osu.edu/>



*Multiple Perspectives on Access, Inclusion & Disability: From Policy to
Practice: May 4-5, 2011* <http://ada.osu.edu/conferences.htm>**




==============

Going to respond to this message? Be sure to hit "Reply All" when doing so.

Disability Discussion Docket (3D) ABA Commission on Mental and Physical
Disability Law http://www.abanet.org/disability

------------------

Material distributed over 3D is for educational and informational purposes
only. The contents of any e-mail, including any statements that may be
construed as legal advice or referral, are solely the responsibility of the
e-mail’s author. In no event shall any contents be the responsibility of and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Bar Association, its
officers, employees, agents or the Commission on Mental and Physical
Disability Law.

------------------

Getting too many e-mails? You can switch to the digest format by sending a
message to listserv at mail.abanet.org. Leave the subject blank and in the body
of the message type "SET list HTML DIGEST". To return to the traditional
subscription, follow the same directions, but put "SET list NODIGEST" in the
body of the message.

If you want to leave this list at any time and are an ABA member, please log
in at: http://www.abanet.org/elistserv/home.cfm?src=CC&LSN=CMPDL-3D for
proper options. If you are not an ABA member and want to leave this list,
please send a message to listserv at mail.abanet.org. In the body of the
message type "signoff cmpdl-3d."

 If you have any questions about 3D or the CMPDL in general, please contact
William Phelan at phelanw at staff.abanet.org.



-- 
Kathryn CARROLL
St. John's University College of Law 2013
631-521-3018
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nyabs_nfbnet.org/attachments/20110105/e0af9307/attachment.html>