Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 MAY 2014

LSAT And DFEH Settle Reasonable Accommodation Dispute

Fox Rothschild LLP
Explore more from Fox Rothschild LLP

The Law School Admission Council – a nonprofit that administers the Law School Aptitude Test or LSAT – has settled a dispute with the Department of Justice and California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing over accommodations for disabled test-takers.

United StatesEmployment and HR
Jeffrey Polsky
Jeffrey Polsky
Author LinkedIn connections

The Law School Admission Council – a nonprofit that administers the Law School Aptitude Test or LSAT – has settled a dispute with the Department of Justice and California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing over accommodations for disabled test-takers.

As we discussed here, California enacted Education Code section 99161.5 in 2013 to:

(1)  require that LSAC accommodate disabled test-takers (which it was already doing);

(2) dictate a public procedure, including a right to appeal, for handling accommodation requests; and

(3) prevent LSAC from telling schools which students received accommodation.

LSAC tried to argue that legislation imposing requirements on it but not similar businesses violated its equal protection rights. But as we reported here, they lost that argument.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Treasury Issues Temporary Regulations On Trump Accounts And Contributions

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and IRS recently issued temporary regulations that provide an immediately effective framework for establishing and administering “Trump Accounts,” including broad automatic enrollment and large-scale contributions funded by governmental and charitable donors. The regulations became effective September 30, 2026, apply to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, and expire September 30, 2029.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Fennemore Craig, P.C.
Fennemore Craig, P.C.
Article

California Passes AB-1883 Targeting AI Workplace Surveillance Of Employees’ Emotional State And Neural Data

On Aug. 30, AB-1883 received final legislative approval and now heads to California Governor Gavin Newsom for signature or veto. If enacted, AB-1883 would prohibit employers from using workplace surveillance tools that rely on artificial intelligence (AI) to recognize, infer, or predict an employee’s emotional state, or to collect “neural data.”
United StatesEmployment and HR
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
Article

Recent Developments In Mobley v. Workday: California Court Allows Key AI-Hiring Bias Claims To Move Forward

On June 22, 2026, in Mobley v. Workday, Inc., U.S. District Judge Rita Lin largely denied Workday’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, including rejecting the company’s argument that California’s anti-discrimination laws do not apply to its screening of applicants outside California who are applying for jobs in other states or countries.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Reavis Page Jump LLP
Reavis Page Jump LLP
Article

2026 Changes To FLSA Overtime Exemption Rules: What Employers Should Know About Revised Salary Requirements

Federal overtime exemption rules have shifted back to 2019 standards following court challenges to the Department of Labor's 2024 salary threshold increases. Understanding how these revised requirements affect executive, administrative, professional, and highly compensated employee classifications is critical for maintaining wage-hour compliance.
United StatesEmployment and HR
Genova Burns
Genova Burns