Welcome to Disability Rights Advocates
Home > Cases > Education and Testing > Turner v. AAMC
Oakland, Calif., November 2, 2006
In a class action trial that could have a sweeping impact on the way many standardized testing companies administer their exams, a judge in California found that policies used to review requests for disability accommodations on the Medical School Admissions Test (MCAT) are too stringent and do not comply with civil rights laws. In a statement of decision issued November 2, 2006, the California Superior Court ordered the administrator of the exam -- the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) – to revamp its accommodation review procedures within 60 days. Because the MCAT is similar in design to other standardized admissions tests, including the SAT and the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), the decision is expected to have a ripple effect across the testing industry.
The case, Turner et. al. v. American Association of Medical Colleges , Case No. RG 04166148, was initially brought in 2004 by four college graduates with dyslexia and other learning disabilities who sought a medical education, but who were denied the accommodation of extra time on the MCAT. In September 2005, Judge Ronald Sabraw of the California Superior Court certified the case as a class action and expanded it to cover all disabled test takers in California.
During the subsequent week-long trial, the Plaintiffs submitted extensive testimony challenging what they described as common misconceptions about learning disabilities. The evidence, which AAMC’s witnesses did not challenge, showed that while a learning disability slows reading speed by impacting certain neurological pathways, the condition does not impair intelligence or the other cognitive abilities necessary to complete a medical education or become a successful physician.
“Until this trial, the Association of American Medical Colleges was out of touch with the medical facts regarding learning disabilities and why accommodations like extra time make sense,” said Roger Heller, an attorney from Disability Rights Advocates and one of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys in the case. By the end of the trial, however, AAMC admitted that individuals with learning disabilities could succeed in the profession, but that they need extra time on standardized tests to have a fair opportunity to demonstrate their actual knowledge, skills and potential for success. In fact, AAMC’s final witness at the end of the trial – the Director of the MCAT, Dr. Ellen Julian – eventually admitted that providing accommodations is not only legally mandated, but also “the right thing to do.”
“I am thrilled with the Court’s decision,” said Brendan Pierce, one of the named plaintiffs in the case. “Hopefully, the suspicion that I faced when I applied for accommodations on the MCAT will go away and people with learning disabilities will now be able to take the MCAT and other national tests on a level playing field with their non-disabled peers.”
AAMC had defended its procedures by claiming that providing extra time to disabled test-takers would change what the MCAT tests and could provide disabled test takers with a potentially unfair advantage. At the conclusion of the trial, however, the Court found that the AAMC failed to submit any evidence to prove either of those contentions. To the contrary, the evidence showed that the MCAT – like most other standardized admissions tests in the United States – was not designed to measure reading speed, but rather knowledge and problem solving skills. In addition, the Plaintiffs submitted a research article published by the Director of the MCAT program, which acknowledged that extra time could make the scores of disabled test takers a more accurate reflection of their knowledge and skills.
AAMC also claimed that some individuals might “malinger” in order to obtain a learning disability diagnosis simply to get an “edge on a difficult exam.” But AAMC failed to present a single fact or research study to support this alleged concern.
DRA brought this case as a class action on behalf of individuals with learning disabilities against the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), challenging AAMC's discriminatory procedures and criteria for reviewing accommodations requests for the MCAT exam.
In the case, Turner v. AAMC, Plaintiffs allege that the AAMC's procedures and criteria violate California laws protecting people with disabilities. Among other practices, the Plaintiffs are challenging the AAMC's blanket denial of accommodations to individuals that have achieved past academic success, the AAMC's practice of second-guessing the diagnoses and recommendations of qualified physicians, and the AAMC's reliance on unqualified employees to make accommodations decisions.
| Judge's Decision | [ PDF ] | [ TXT ] |
|---|
Download the latest version of Adobe's Acrobat Reader by visiting Adobe.com.
