Judge Sotomayor's ruling on the case of Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners is one that offers insight into her process, diligence and impact.
The NY Times provides a brief summary here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html?hpJudge Sotomayor ruled that a law school graduate with a reading and learning disability was entitled to extra time in taking the bar exams. After the Supreme Court decided that people are not protected under the Americans With Disabilities Act if they can function normally by wearing glasses, taking medication or otherwise compensating for their disabilities, it told the Second Court to reconsider its decision in this case. Judge Sotomayor again found that the woman was disabled, and must be given accommodations, writing that test scores alone were not enough to diagnose a disability.
A more detailed article in the Times titled "On the Bench, With Fairness and Empathy" speaks to her process:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/nyregion/27about.html?_r=1"She was concerned with the life behind the caption,” said Jo Anne Simon, the lawyer who represented Dr. Bartlett.
The case, though, demanded far more than empathy for the plaintiff — it also required a command of statistics and an understanding of standardized reading tests. The disabilities rights act had become law only five years earlier.
~snip~
In ruling for Dr. Bartlett, Judge Sotomayor said that the state mistakenly relied just on tests of disputed value. “The board (like many others in the public) wants the comfort of a test score to measure this complex process,” she wrote. But, she said, “A learning disability is not measurable in the same way a blood disease can be measured in a serum test.”
Dr. Bartlett, she said, was an intelligent, highly articulate person who read “haltingly, and laboriously,” slower than 78 percent of 14-year-olds on a test.
“For those of us for whom words sing, sentences paint pictures, and paragraphs create panoramic views of the world, the inability to identify and process words with ease would be crippling,” Judge Sotomayor wrote.
So, for this ruling, Judge Sotomayor prepared by conducting intensive research on an area new to her and fully familiarized herself with the complex topic matter. She researched and examined the testing methodology, she extensively questioned the plaintiff and lawyer to clarify points, and she analyzed the evidence in the context of the ADA's definition of disability as a substantial limitation of one or more of life's major activities.
Law.com has an excellent article from 2001 which presents more details from the case and from Sotomayor's ruling on it:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=900005521872Thorough? In addition to the research, court demonstrations and questioning and analysis, she wrote a 99-page opinion on the case. Recently, I have read about Sotomayor's writing being dry or boring. I find the quotation above to be eloquent and pertinent and one that would help people without disabilities to gain a deeper understanding of someone who has a learning disability.
Thoughtful? Sotomayor's ruling in Bartlett has held. I don't know if this is one the cases being cited as overturned by the Supreme Court. In fact, her ruling prevailed and was cited by Congress as an example of a ruling in line with the civil rights intent of the ADA when Congress amended the ADA in 2008:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20080917-24 Fortney Stark : I thank the Chairman.
Specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, are neurologically based impairments that substantially limit the way these individuals perform major life activities, like reading or learning, or the time it takes to perform such activities often referred to as the condition, manner, or duration.
This legislation will reestablish coverage for these individuals by ensuring that the definition of this ability is broadly construed and the determination does not consider the use of mitigating measures.
Given this, would the chairman agree that these amendments support the finding in Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners in which the court held that in determining whether the plaintiff was substantially limited with respect to reading, Bartlett's ability to "self-accommodate" should not be taken into consideration when determining whether she was protected by the ADA?
Mr. MILLER, GEORGE (of California): Yes, I would.
As we stated in the committee report on H.R. 3195, the committee supports the finding in Bartlett. Our report explains that "an individual with an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity should not be penalized when seeking protection under the ADA simply because he or she managed their own adaptive strategies or received informal or undocumented accommodations that have the effect of lessening the deleterious impacts of their disability."
Rep. Fortney Stark : I want to thank the chairman. It is indeed our full intention to ensure that the civil rights law retains its focus on protecting individuals with disabilities and not the interests of entities that may need to address their practices in accordance with the ADA.
I look forward to working with the chairman to continue to protect individuals with specific learning disabilities to ensure that unnecessary barriers are not being erected in their path.
I want to thank the chairman, the distinguished ranking member, our colleague from Wisconsin, and the majority leader for their work on this landmark legislation.
Above all, the ADA is a civil rights act affirming equal access. Sotomayor understood that and issued an important ruling in a landmark case and she did so competently and decisively.
That's something to remember as the rhetoric amps up.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
