Learning Disabilities and the ADA: Licensing Exam Accommodations in the Wake of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008

This Article argues that the courts must be cognizant of Congress\u27 intention to broaden the scope of the ADA, especially in regard to reading impaired individuals who request reasonable accommodations on licensing exams. Part I examines the ADA\u27s protections for individuals with learning disabilities. Part II discusses the applicability of the ADA to licensing exams, including state bar exams. Part III examines case law over the past twenty years pertaining to learning impaired individuals who have requested accommodations on licensing exams. Part IV analyzes the ADAAA and focuses on its potential to change the status quo for learning impaired individuals who request accommodations on licensing exams. Finally, Part V puts forth recommendations for the courts to provide appropriate standards for individuals requesting accommodations on licensing exams under the amended ADA. Specifically, this Article suggests that: (1) courts should no longer foreclose the finding of a substantially limiting impairment in regard to the major life activity of reading due to an individual\u27s academic success; (2) working should be recognized as an appropriate major life activity under which to evaluate claims for accommodations on the bar exam (and possibly other licensing exams), with such evaluations involving a comparison to most people having comparable training, skills, and abilities; and (3) reading disabilities should be recognized not only by psychometric tests that show a substantial limitation in comparison to most people, but also by test scores that indicate a significant discrepancy between an individual\u27s intellectual capacity and actual reading ability. By following these recommendations, the courts will be able to evaluate future claims for accommodations on licensing exams with standards that reflect Congress\u27 intention to provide a broad scope of protection under the ADA

Learning Disabilities and the ADA: Licensing Exam Accommodations in the Wake of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008

This Article argues that the courts must be cognizant of Congress\u27 intention to broaden the scope of the ADA, especially in regard to reading impaired individuals who request reasonable accommodations on licensing exams. Part I examines the ADA\u27s protections for individuals with learning disabilities. Part II discusses the applicability of the ADA to licensing exams, including state bar exams. Part III examines case law over the past twenty years pertaining to learning impaired individuals who have requested accommodations on licensing exams. Part IV analyzes the ADAAA and focuses on its potential to change the status quo for learning impaired individuals who request accommodations on licensing exams. Finally, Part V puts forth recommendations for the courts to provide appropriate standards for individuals requesting accommodations on licensing exams under the amended ADA. Specifically, this Article suggests that: (1) courts should no longer foreclose the finding of a substantially limiting impairment in regard to the major life activity of reading due to an individual\u27s academic success; (2) working should be recognized as an appropriate major life activity under which to evaluate claims for accommodations on the bar exam (and possibly other licensing exams), with such evaluations involving a comparison to most people having comparable training, skills, and abilities; and (3) reading disabilities should be recognized not only by psychometric tests that show a substantial limitation in comparison to most people, but also by test scores that indicate a significant discrepancy between an individual\u27s intellectual capacity and actual reading ability. By following these recommendations, the courts will be able to evaluate future claims for accommodations on licensing exams with standards that reflect Congress\u27 intention to provide a broad scope of protection under the ADA

After the Revolution: Egypt\u27s Changing Forms of Corruption

Egypt’s revolution of January 25, 2011 was impelled by a desire to eliminate “conventional corruption,” a particular kind of corruption that occurs when government officials illegally abuse public office for private gain. Illegal quid pro quo transactions, including acts of bribery, are prominent examples of conventional corruption. This form of corruption is to be contrasted with “unconventional corruption,” a form of corruption that has (thus far) been absent in Egypt. Unconventional corruption occurs when elected officials put personal campaign finances ahead of the public interest without engaging in a quid pro quo transaction. These different forms, conventional and unconventional corruption, are not necessarily exhaustive of the universe of corruption. However, classification of corruption in these terms serves a purpose: when conventional corruption decreases, there is often a correlating increase in unconventional corruption. This relationship is relevant for purposes of analyzing corruption in Egypt because Egypt’s new constitution, although imperfect, provides for greater restraints on executive power, and thus, in turn provides a foundation for a reduction in conventional corruption. However, as a result, problems of unconventional corruption are likely to emerge. Fortunately, unconventional corruption is not an inevitable side effect of progress—it can be contained. With a certain bit of insight and courage, the people of Egypt can reform their campaign finance system and bring forth a true democracy—one where elected officials make decisions not for the benefit of potential political funders, but rather, for the benefit of the people

After the Revolution: Egypt\u27s Changing Forms of Corruption

Egypt’s revolution of January 25, 2011 was impelled by a desire to eliminate “conventional corruption,” a particular kind of corruption that occurs when government officials illegally abuse public office for private gain. Illegal quid pro quo transactions, including acts of bribery, are prominent examples of conventional corruption. This form of corruption is to be contrasted with “unconventional corruption,” a form of corruption that has (thus far) been absent in Egypt. Unconventional corruption occurs when elected officials put personal campaign finances ahead of the public interest without engaging in a quid pro quo transaction. These different forms, conventional and unconventional corruption, are not necessarily exhaustive of the universe of corruption. However, classification of corruption in these terms serves a purpose: when conventional corruption decreases, there is often a correlating increase in unconventional corruption. This relationship is relevant for purposes of analyzing corruption in Egypt because Egypt’s new constitution, although imperfect, provides for greater restraints on executive power, and thus, in turn provides a foundation for a reduction in conventional corruption. However, as a result, problems of unconventional corruption are likely to emerge. Fortunately, unconventional corruption is not an inevitable side effect of progress—it can be contained. With a certain bit of insight and courage, the people of Egypt can reform their campaign finance system and bring forth a true democracy—one where elected officials make decisions not for the benefit of potential political funders, but rather, for the benefit of the people