Bonnette v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals
796 F. Supp. 2d 164
D.D.C.2011Background
- Bonnette is legally blind and seeks to take the July 2011 D.C. Bar Exam MBE with a laptop running JAWS; current accommodations offered include audio CD or live human reader, not JAWS; NCBE and Court of Appeals administer the MBE with security and format constraints; NCBE provides multiple accessible formats but does not permit laptop-based JAWS for the MBE; Bonnette previously used JAWS in education and work and relies on it as her primary reading method; the court granted preliminary injunction and denied NCBE’s summary-judgment motion for the time being.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA applicability to exam administration | Bonnette argues §12189 applies to public entities and NCBE; accessible means must be provided. | Defendants claim limited scope and that alternatives suffice. | Plaintiff likely succeeds on ADA grounds; access obligations apply. |
| NCBE's motion to dismiss | §12189 applies; NCBE participates in exam administration. | NCBE not an offeror; motion to dismiss should succeed. | NCBE's motion to dismiss denied; factual issue remains. |
| Best ensure regulation and sufficiency of accommodations | JAWS is the best/essential accommodation to measure aptitude; other aids inadequate. | Alternative aids (reader, audio CD) are sufficient and not overly burdensome. | Courts defer to DOJ guidance; Bonnette has likelihood of success given JAWS as best accommodation. |
| Likelihood of irreparable harm absent injunction | Without JAWS, Bonnette cannot practicably practice law and faces irreparable harm. | Possible pass with other accommodations; irreparable harm disputed. | Irreparable harm shown; injunction appropriate. |
| Balance of equities and public interest | Providing JAWS aligns with ADA goals and Bonnette’s independence. | Security costs and burden on NCBE. | Equities/public interest favor injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Enyart v. Nat'l Conf. of Bar Examiners, 630 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2011) (courts may order accessible formats in testing when necessary to reflect ability)
- Burkhart v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 112 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (primary consideration to accessibility; privacy and independence in aids)
- Shelley v. American Association of People with Disabilities, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (accessibility standards but not require perfect parity in all contexts)