I have to admit that I have not thought about it much, which just shows my woeful lack of knowledge or perspective on the difficulties of the blind trying to apply to law school in this age of the web based application process.
The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and a blind law school applicant filed suit against the U.S. body that administers the law school admissions test because its website is inaccessible to blind applicants.
According to the suit, the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) violates the California Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Act because its Web site and LSAT preparation materials are inaccessible to blind law school applicants.
"The LSAC is engaging in blatant discrimination against the blind and we will not stand for it," NFB President Dr. Marc Maurer said.
Deepa Goroya, the blind applicant and plaintiff in the suit, claimed that trying to use the LSAC Web site made the experience of applying to law school a nightmare for him. "I had to select and rely upon a reader for over 50 hours to complete my law school applications," he said.
The LSAC Web site has accessibility barriers including improperly formatted online forms, tables and charts that cannot be read by screen access software, and faulty keyboard navigation support. "These access barriers make it difficult or impossible for blind people to use the Web site to register to take the LSAT, among other things," according to NFB.
Goroya said the legal action aims to make the process of gaining admission to law school to be easier for all blind people who are interested in a career as a lawyer.
I think this post deserves further comment. Although I am not blind, I do have a child who is blind. Approximately a year and a half ago our youngest was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Thank God it was not malignant and an operation to remove it was completely successful, in terms of getting it out. Because of the size of the tumor it put a great deal of pressure on his optic nerves. This in turn caused him to lose his sight. This occurred at age 35. He was in the middle of a career in the entertainment industry, specifically working on postproduction of movies and TV programs. As you can appreciate this is a visually intense occupation. He is not able to continue in that job.
It has been a long year and a half and he is gradually working on the independent living skills he will need in his future life. We have learned, since this happened to my son, that there are many technical aids that are available to the blind. None of them unfortunately can replace vision.
One of the areas where blind people can function at a high level is using computers and the Internet. There are programs that provide for computer accessibility in the form of screen readers which are quite sophisticated in the functions that a blind person can perform using them. They function better on websites that are designed with blindness accessibility in mind. I think those of us who have been practicing law for any length of time have at one time or another met and/or been involved with an attorney who is blind. The legal profession is one place where being blind is not a bar. Given that, I find it inexcusable that the organization that administers the law school admissions test would have a website that is not accessible to people who do not have vision. Designing such a website is as I understand it relatively easy. The fact that their website is not accessible to the blind should be a source of embarrassment and should have been corrected without the necessity of litigation. The same comments apply to the forms that one needs to fill out in connection with applying to take the test and applying to law school. I hope the litigation by the National Federation for the Blind is successful. I also hope the statute that they are suing under provides for attorney's fees. Maybe other organizations will see this example and not continue to perpetrate this type of outrage.
Finally, where are the law schools in all of this? I have yet to hear anybody address that aspect of the situation.
Posted by: Patrick H. Stiehm | February 22, 2009 at 04:18 PM
CORRECTION BY CORINNE TAMPAS: Mr. Mehrban has not represented Mr. Molski. Mr. Molski was represented by Thomas E. Frankovich, Esq. Mr. Mehrban has represented serial litigants Thomas Mundy and David Gunther in ADA related cases in California. To date, neither Mr. Mundy nor Mr. Gunther have been found to be vexatious litigants.
Unfortunately, when I first saw this entry, my initial reaction was, "Oh. no! Not another one." This reaction is indeed unfair to this plaintiff who probably has a very valid cause of action.
On the other hand, here in California, businesses have been inundated with lawsuits filed by ONE, single plaintiff. That plaintiff, Jarek Molski, a law school graduate, is indeed disabled and wheelchair bound. Yet, as of October 2004, Mr. Molski filed approximately 400 lawsuits against business establishments for ADA violations. Most of these violations sued upon are for infractions amounting to no more than one or two inches of the ADA requirements in public restrooms.
It was not until August 2007, that the Ninth Circuit of Appeals issued an opinion that Mr. Molski was a "vexatious litigant". And while the Federal courts have found that he is a vexatious litigant, it does not appear that this is possible in the California courts as he is represented by counsel; only self-represented litigants can be declared as vexatious litigants in California courts.
Throughout this saga, it is estimated that Mr. Molski received $3,000,000 from lawsuits in Southern California before filing approximately 30 lawsuits on the Central Coast. Often, businesses have settled with Mr. Molski for as little as $1,000 only to be presented with a bill from one of his attorneys, Morse Mehrban, for attorney's fees in the amount of as much as $8,000. (Besides the practice of law, Mr. Mehrban provides advertsing services for displays in public restrooms! See, www.mehrban.com ) Both Mr. Molski and Mr. Mehrban consider themselves as "civil rights and consumer advocates".
While NO ONE would deny that disabled persons should be accommodated, there is clearly abuse in this system. Many businesses have advocated that a business should be given an opportunity to remedy any violation prior to the filing of a lawsuit which is what the California State Legislature attempted to do when it passed SB 1608. From my reading of the legislation, it merely adds a layer of bureaucracy before a lawsuit may be filed.
Posted by: Corinne A. Tampas | February 22, 2009 at 06:42 PM