Immunity of the State
In a July 19, 2024 decision, the United States Court of Appeals (Court) considered an appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York regarding an applicant’s request for testing accommodations from the New York State Board of Law Examiners (Board).
Appellant is a Harvard Law School graduate who had received testing accommodations while at Harvard, including extra time on examinations, breaks, and separate testing facilities. The Board initially denied her requests for any accommodation while taking the New York State Bar examination. However, upon appeal, the Board granted accommodation requests, in part, including breaks and seating the Appellant in a smaller room. In July 2013, Appellant failed the examination. In July 2014, the Board allowed extra time, seating in a room with others receiving similar accommodations, but no breaks. The Appellant failed again and was fired by her law firm. In 2015, the Appellant passed the bar examination with accommodations, which now included double time. Appellant alleged that the Board’s failure to provide the requested accommodations resulted in her inability to find employment comparable to the law firm where she was employed as an intern. She thus sued the Board and the members of the Board and sought declaratory, compensatory, and injunctive relief.
Appellant alleged that the Board violated Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act (29 USC § 794, et. seq.) (Act), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) by denying requests for accommodations on the New York State Bar examination in 2013 and 2014. Appellant did withdraw claims under Title III and against the NYCHRL and Board members in their individual capacities.
In looking at the remaining claims under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the District Court declined to grant the Board’s request to dismiss the action. The Board subsequently took an interlocutory appeal. This Court reversed and held “the Board was immune from suit under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act” and that it “had not waived its immunity under Section 504.” This Court reversed the District Court denial of the Board’s Motion to Dismiss the Section 504 claim and remanded it to the District Court for consideration of the Title II claim under the ADA. The District Court held the Board “was an arm of the state, that Title II of the ADA did not abrogate sovereign immunity in the context of professional licensing exams, that the declaratory relief [Appellant] seeks is not a valid application of the doctrine.” Further, the Board stated that the Appellant lacked standing to pursue her requested injunctive relief. Thus, the District Court granted the Board’s Motion to Dismiss the Title II claim, leading to the appeal before this Court.
This Court found that the “Board’s status as an arm of the state has become the law of the case;” “the Board had not waived its sovereign immunity” as held in the earlier case. The Appellant failed to raise the “arm-of-the-state issue,” and the law of the case was settled earlier. Further, this Court concluded that the Board is an arm of the state for 11th Amendment purposes. Specifically, “Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not validly abrogate sovereign immunity as applied to T.W.’s claim, and in the context of occupational choice and professional licensing more broadly.”
Affirmed District Court’s dismissal of Title II claim for compensatory, declaratory, and injunctive relief.