2:22-cv-05120
E.D.N.Y.Dec 2, 2022Background
- Robert Sampson, a Stony Brook medical student, must pass USMLE Step 1 to continue and complete his MD; he failed Step 1 when he took it without accommodations.
- Longstanding history of reading/processing difficulties and slow reading from childhood; extensive mitigating strategies and heavy tutoring across schooling.
- Multiple psychological evaluations (2013 and 2020) diagnosed Specific Learning Disorder (dyslexia) and, in the latest evaluation, ADHD; Stony Brook’s Disability Services granted time-and-a-half (50%) and later double time (100%) on comparable shelf exams, producing markedly improved scores.
- Sampson applied repeatedly to NBME for Step 1 accommodations (50% then 100% time plus breaks and separate room); NBME denied requests after reviews by external consultants who did not evaluate Sampson in person.
- After Sampson failed Step 1 unaccommodated and faced possible dismissal under Stony Brook’s seven-year rule, he sued NBME and moved for a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring NBME to provide double time, a separate room, and extended breaks.
- The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering NBME to provide double time, a separate testing room, and extended breaks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether movant meets heightened standard for mandatory preliminary injunction | Sampson: will suffer irreparable harm (loss of medical career and opportunity) absent relief; strong showing required is met | NBME: plaintiff’s delay and prior denials undermine claim of imminent irreparable harm | Court: Sampson made a strong showing of irreparable harm (likely to fail again without accommodations; risk of dismissal; remedy at trial inadequate) |
| Whether Sampson is disabled under the ADA (substantially limited in reading/concentrating) | Sampson: lifetime history, in-person evaluations (esp. Wasserstein), test results, and history of accommodations show substantial limitations | NBME: test scores and academic outcomes show average abilities; experts emphasize normative/technical critiques and variability not proof of disability | Court: credited in-person evaluators and totality of evidence; found Sampson disabled under ADA (Specific Learning Disorder and ADHD) |
| Weight to give prior accommodations and in-person evaluations when reviewing testing accommodations | Sampson: DOJ guidance requires giving considerable weight to past accommodations and to assessments by professionals who personally examined the applicant | NBME: past successes and some test results undercut disability; agency reviewers are permitted to evaluate documentation and need not interview | Court: gave considerable weight to Stony Brook’s accommodations and to in-person evaluations; found NBME’s reliance on reviewers who never met Sampson insufficient |
| Whether requested accommodations are appropriate and balance of harms/public interest | Sampson: double time/separate room/extra breaks are necessary to ensure test measures knowledge, not disability; public interest favors ADA enforcement | NBME: granting accommodations risks altering exam validity, fairness, and public welfare | Court: balance favors Sampson; accommodations are appropriate to allow accurate measurement and public interest supports ADA compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Yang v. Kosinski, 960 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2020) (sets heightened standard for mandatory preliminary injunction)
- N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. United States Soccer Fed'n, Inc., 883 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2018) (distinguishes mandatory vs. prohibitory injunctions and standard)
- Ramsay v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 968 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2020) (crediting in-person evaluations and past accommodations in ADA testing-accommodation context)
- Powell v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 364 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (testing entity’s duty to ensure fair administration of licensing exams)
- Enyart v. Nat'l Conf. of Bar Exam'rs, 630 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2011) (refusal to provide accommodations can cause irreparable harm by jeopardizing professional career)
- B.C. v. Mount Vernon Sch. Dist., 837 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2016) (not every impairment qualifies as a disability)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) (pre-ADAAA narrower interpretation of ‘‘substantially limits’’ discussed)
- PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 2051 (2019) (agency regulations promulgated after notice-and-comment have force and effect of law)