823 F. Supp. 2d 995
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Enyart, legally blind, sought MBE and MPRE accommodations from NCBE; NCBE refused MBE accommodations.
- California State Bar approved accommodations on non-NCBE portions and signaled willingness to permit MBE accommodations if NCBE allowed or court ordered.
- Two preliminary injunctions in 2010 required NCBE to provide accommodations on the Bar Exam; Enyart did not pass those administrations.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunctions and adopted the Chevron-deferential “best ensure” standard under 28 C.F.R. § 36.309 for licensing examinations.
- Experts Rainey (assistive technology consultant) and Britton (cognitive psychology) support that JAWS + ZoomText best ensure Enyart’s performance; NCBE presented limited contrary expert, Damari, who could not opine on best require.
- The court grants summary judgment, finding no genuine factual disputes and that the accommodations are not an undue burden; ADA and Unruh Act claims and injunctive relief are at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the best ensure standard governs the case. | Enyart’s accommodations best ensure test results reflect aptitude. | NCBE disputes the standard but the court should apply best ensure per Ninth Circuit. | Yes; best ensure applies and favors Enyart. |
| Whether expert testimony supports the requested accommodations. | Rainey and Britton establish appropriateness of JAWS + ZoomText. | NCBE challenges Dr. Britton’s reliance and Dr. Damari offers limited contradiction. | Expert testimony supports granting summary judgment. |
| Whether the accommodations constitute an undue burden on NCBE. | Undue burden not shown given alternatives and policy considerations. | Accommodations would impose financial and administrative burden. | Not an undue burden; accommodations are required. |
| Whether the ADA violation entails Unruh Act violation and entitlement to injunctive relief. | ADA violation per se violates the Unruh Act; injunctive relief appropriate. | ADA violation entails Unruh Act violation; permanent injunctive relief granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 F.3d 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; rational fact-finding)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden on movant to show no genuine issue)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (reliability and admissibility of expert testimony)
- United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) (testimony must assist the trier of fact)
- Thomas v. Newton International Enters., Inc., 42 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 1994) (admissibility of expert testimony—broadly construed)
- Rahm v. United States, 993 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1993) (Daubert framework applied to expert reliability)
- Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, 370 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2004) (ADA/Unruh Act context; per se linkage)