Granda v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., No. 2:2005cv01090 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2005)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM of OPINION and ORDER signed by Judge David F. Levi on 6/9/2005. 3 12 Motion(s) for Temporary Restraining Order as to plaintiff's request that defendant be ordered to provide requested accomodations is DENIED. Plaintiff's requ est for other relief is GRANTED. Defendant ORDERED to treat plaintiff as a timely late-registrant and evaluate plaintiff's accommodation application to determine what accommodations, if any, are appropriate. Defendant shall inform plaintiff of results of its evaluation w/in 24 hours of issuance of this Order. (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Granda v. Law School Admission Council, Inc. Case 2:05-cv-01090-DFL-KJM Doc. 26 Document 26 Filed 06/09/2005 Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 SARA GRANDA, Plaintiff, CIV-S-05-1090 DFL KJM 11 v. MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER 12 13 14 LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION COUNCIL, INC., Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff Sara Granda moves for a temporary restraining 17 order to compel defendant Law School Admission Council, Inc. 18 ( LSAC ) to grant her request for accommodations for the June 6, 19 2005 Law School Admissions Test ( LSAT ). 20 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The plaintiff s motion 21 To secure a temporary restraining order, plaintiff must 22 demonstrate either a combination of probable success on the 23 merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious 24 questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in 25 [her] favor. 26 (citing Johnson v. Cal. State Bd. of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, Rodde v. Bonta, 357 F.3d 988, 994 (9th Cir. 2004) 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-01090-DFL-KJM 1 2 Document 26 Filed 06/09/2005 Page 2 of 5 1430 (9th Cir. 1995)) (emphasis in original). The Department of Justice has interpreted the Americans with 3 Disabilities Act ( ADA ) to permit private organizations that 4 administer examinations for post-secondary applications to 5 require a disabled applicant to provide advance notice of her 6 need for accommodation. 7 requirement for advance notice must not be unreasonable and the 8 deadline for such notice [must not be] earlier than the deadline 9 for others applying to take the examination. 10 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. B. However, the Id. Plaintiff timely registered as a late registrant. She also 11 asserts that by that date she provided LSAC with all the 12 necessary materials for her accommodation request. 13 refuses to process her application because she also timely 14 registered under the regular registration deadline. 15 that once a registrant submits an application for the regular 16 deadline, she may not submit a second timely application for the 17 late registration deadline, even if she withdraws her first 18 registration, pays the late fee, and her papers are otherwise in 19 order. 20 late registration, LSAC would process her application. 21 she first applied for regular registration by the May 3 deadline, 22 however, LSAC declines to permit her to go forward as a late 23 registrant. 24 25 26 However, LSAC LSAC asserts Therefore, if plaintiff had first filed on May 4 for the Because Plaintiff alleges that defendant s policy of prohibiting disabled test-takers who register during the regular registration period from re-registering during the late registration period 2 Case 2:05-cv-01090-DFL-KJM Document 26 Filed 06/09/2005 Page 3 of 5 1 for purposes of submitting a timely accommodation application is 2 unreasonable and results in an earlier registration deadline for 3 applicants seeking accommodations. 4 this juncture, the policy appears discriminatory because 5 applicants for accommodations are, on the record before the 6 court, the only class of persons prohibited from re-registering 7 for late registration once they have registered during the 8 regular registration period. 9 a non-disabled applicant who cancelled her timely registration 10 and then changed her mind and registered as a late registrant, 11 paying the additional fee, would be permitted to sit for the 12 examination. 13 instructions that forbid timely re-registration by any applicant, 14 whether disabled or not, defendant has failed to do so.1 15 defendant has not provided any evidence that non-disabled 16 applicants are prohibited from re-registering as late applicants, 17 plaintiff has met her burden of demonstrating serious questions (Mot. at 10-11.) At least at Thus, for example, it appears that Despite an invitation to file the written Because 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Counsel for defendant stated during oral argument that in paragraph sixteen of Kim Dempsey s declaration, Dempsey avers that the policy is uniform; however, that portion of the Dempsey declaration is at least ambiguous and appears to be directed exclusively to applicants seeking accommodation. The court invited counsel to file the page of the instruction booklet that informed all registrants, disabled and non-disabled, that LSAC prohibits re-registration as a late applicant once a timely registration is on file, even if that registration is withdrawn and a new fee and timely late application is filed. Instead, counsel filed a letter brief, with accompanying documents, addressing other matters. The court may draw the inference from this unhelpful response that no such instructions exist and that non-disabled registrants may re-register as late registrants even if they have already registered in time for the regular deadline but then cancelled the registration. 3 Case 2:05-cv-01090-DFL-KJM 1 Document 26 Filed 06/09/2005 Page 4 of 5 regarding the merits of her claim. 2 Plaintiff has also shown that the balance of hardships tips 3 sharply in her favor. 4 1.) 5 dedicate a substantial amount of time and effort to prepare for a 6 subsequent administration of the LSAT. 7 argues that granting the relief requested by plaintiff will 8 undermine its role as regulator of the integrity of the LSAT and 9 deprive it of the opportunity to defend the reasonableness of its Plaintiff is a C2 quadriplegic. (Mot. at She alleges that if relief is denied, she will need to (Mot. at 12.) Defendant 10 policy in court. 11 hardships depends on the relief granted. 12 relief maintains the defendant as the arbiter of the appropriate 13 accommodations, the balance of hardships tips sharply in 14 plaintiff s favor. 15 (Opp n at 20-21.) The balance of these Because the following Plaintiff s request that defendant be ordered to provide the 16 requested accommodations is DENIED. 17 other relief is GRANTED. 18 as a timely late-registrant and evaluate plaintiff s 19 accommodation application to determine what accommodations, if 20 any, are appropriate. 21 results of its evaluation within 24 hours of the issuance of this 22 order. 23 Plaintiff s request for Defendant is ordered to treat plaintiff Defendant shall inform plaintiff of the //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 4 Case 2:05-cv-01090-DFL-KJM 1 2 Document 26 Filed 06/09/2005 Page 5 of 5 Entered this day of June 9, 2005 at 8:35 AM in Sacramento, California. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 5 6 DAVID F. LEVI Chief United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
