I wrote a year ago about a new statute in California that told Law School Admission Council, Inc. — the nonprofit that administers the Law School Aptitude Test — that it has to:
- Provide accommodations for disabled test-takers (which it was already doing);
- Make public the process for determining whether an accommodation is warranted; and
- Stop notifying law schools if, for example, a test-taker received extra time as an accommodation (a process known as flagging).
LSAC argued that the no-flagging requirement (codified in Education Code section 99161.5(c)) violates its constitutional right to equal protection by singling it out while allowing other testing services to continue flagging scores earned under nonstandard conditions.
As reported today by Michael Lipton in Law360 (subscription), the court of appeal upheld the statute. Although it was directed only at LSAC, the court said that the state was entitled to treat law school admissions differently. So LSAC is now prohibited from notifying schools which applicants received extra time or other accommodations.
The case illustrates yet again the extent that businesses are expected to go to to accommodate disabled employees, applicants, and consumers. It also reminds us that the accommodations someone receives is private information that cannot be disclosed to others (even if that person’s co-workers are complaining of favoritism). Finally, as I’ve said before, the next time you feel that the state is making it unreasonably hard for you to run your business, be thankful that it’s not enacting legislation focused exclusively on your company.