Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Law School Admission Council Inc.
896 F. Supp. 2d 849
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- DFEH sued LSAC in federal court for ADA/Unruh Act/FEHA violations related to LSAT disability accommodations.
- DFEH asserts a class action on behalf of disabled California test-takers and seventeen named plaintiffs; LSAC removed to federal court.
- DFEH alleges LSAC’s procedures (documentation, medication disclosures, and “flagging” accommodated scores) discriminate against disabled test-takers.
- LSAC moves to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) arguing lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, improper damages, administrative exhaustion issues, and Doe defendants.
- Court analyzes FEHA/Unruh Act jurisdiction, ADA incorporation, and whether DFEH may proceed with class and various ADA-based claims; decides in part for DFEH.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does DFEH have jurisdiction under the Unruh Act to pursue ADA claims via FEHA? | DFEH argues Unruh Act §51(f) incorporates the full ADA, including evolving amendments. | LSAC contends only §51(b) rights exist and Unruh Act exposure is limited to FEHA’s original scope. | DFEH has jurisdiction under §51(f) to pursue evolving ADA claims. |
| Does ADA §51(f) incorporate the ADA as it currently exists or only as of 1992? | Incorporation is broad and evolving under Palermo v. Stockton Theatres. | Incorporation should be limited to 1992 form per Palermo’s time-specific reading. | ADA is incorporated not only in 1992 form but as it may be changed over time. |
| May DFEH assert ADA claims not expressly alleged in the initial verified complaints under Rodriguez v. Airborne Express? | Facts alleged show disability discrimination; relation-back allows ADA theories to be included. | Only claims arising from initial verified complaints may be pursued. | DFEH’s ADA claims are permissible as like/related to initial allegations; relation-back applies. |
| Is there a private right of action under § 12189 to support DFEH’s First/Second/Third/ Fourth/ Fifth Causes of Action? | ADA §12188(a)(1) provides a private right; §12189 governs accessibility and accommodations with DOJ guidance. | Some argued regulations or definitional expansions may not create private remedies; focus on statutory text. | Private rights exist; §36.309(b)(1)(iv) interpretive regulation is enforceable; §12189 imposes concrete duties. |
| Should Doe Defendants be dismissed for lack of pleading specificity and potential individual liability? | DFEH asserts Doe Defendants may be liable; placeholder allegations suffice at this stage. | Dydzak-style pleading requires more specific facts; no individual liability under Title III ADA against LSAC workers. | Doe Defendants are dismissed; individual liability not shown and pleading insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Palermo v. Stockton Theatres, 32 Cal.2d 53 (Cal. 1948) (incorporation of statutes by reference depends on whether the reference is general or specific; system-wide incorporation favors evolving ADA)
- Lentini v. California Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2004) (Unruh Act adopts full scope of the ADA; evolving amendments apply)
- Rodriguez v. Airborne Express, 265 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2001) (new allegations may be added if facts support a like/related scope; threshold boundaries control)
- Enyart v. Nat’l Conference of Bar Examiners, Inc., 630 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2011) (DOJ interpretation of §12189 is permissible; best ensure standard governs testing)
- Turner v. Ass’n of American Medical Colleges, 167 Cal.App.4th 1401 (Cal.2008) (ADA rights incorporated via §51(f) not limited as Turner didn’t rely on §51(f) at issue here)