LINCOLN, Neb. (Legal Newsline) - A woman who sought almost $500,000 from the Nebraska State Bar for failing to provide proper disability accommodations when she took the bar exam can’t seek relief from the Nebraska Supreme Court even though the state’s high court is in control of attorney licensing.
She still might have valid claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in a June 10 decision, but the court does not have jurisdiction over damages claims under the appeal process it has established for disgruntled bar exam candidates.
A woman identified only as Z.H. completed law school in 2000 and failed the bar exam in 2019 and 2020, ultimately passing in February 2021. For the last two exams, she requested special accommodations for her rheumatoid arthritis, including 33% more time to complete the test, a special chair and speech recognition technology so she didn’t have to type her answers.
The Bar Commission granted some of her requests but required Z.H. to take the test at its office in Lincoln on a computer scrubbed of software, to preserve the security of the exam. She passed after 11 ½ hours but complained of “extreme mental stress, anxiety, and physical pain” because of the conditions imposed.
In March 2021, the Bar told her she passed. The same day, she filed a brief seeking $10,000 in costs including payment for 63.5 hours of her time at $75 an hour to prepare documents. She sought another $455,000 in May for fees and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, saying she was discriminated against because other candidates were allowed to take the exam remotely.
Nebraska law places control of attorney licensing under the state Supreme Court, which delegates administration to the Bar Commission. The law allows bar candidates to appeal adverse decisions directly to the Supreme Court, and in one prior case involving a man with dyslexia, the court decided candidates could use that process to challenge decisions on disability accommodations.
The Z.H. case was similar, the court said, but her request for money damages was beyond the court’s jurisdiction, both under the rules for administering the bar and its original jurisdiction under the state constitution.
Our lack of jurisdiction to award Z.H. costs, damages, and other relief does not mean that Z.H. is without legal recourse to seek redress from the harms she has alleged,” the court concluded. “Our ruling merely means that she must seek her relief in another venue.”