## Facts

- Four pseudonymous applicants sought admission to the Florida Bar and sued the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, its executive director (official capacity), and the Florida Supreme Court (as a rulemaking body).
- Plaintiffs challenged bar application and investigative practices focused on mental health history, including:
  - an application question asking whether an applicant had ever sought treatment for a nervous/mental/emotional condition, had been diagnosed with such a condition, or had taken psychotropic drugs;
  - an automatic requirement, upon any affirmative response, to identify mental-health providers and provide consultation dates;
  - a consent/waiver authorizing release of “any and all” mental health records and waiving confidentiality;
  - routine letters of inquiry to past treatment professionals; and
  - discretionary follow-up investigations and potential hearings.
- Plaintiffs alleged these practices applied only to applicants with disclosed mental-health treatment/diagnosis/medication history and imposed burdens and stigma unrelated to present fitness.
- Plaintiffs brought claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its implementing regulations barring eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and, in a supplemental motion, sought dismissal (or summary judgment) arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and relying on a prior decision dismissing similar claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Title II ADA claim that the challenged mental-health questions and related investigative practices imposed discriminatory or unnecessary eligibility criteria.
2. Whether plaintiffs alleged a sufficient injury to sue despite not having been finally denied bar admission.
3. Whether the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the challenge to state bar admission practices.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The court denied defendants’ supplemental motion to dismiss (and the alternative request for summary judgment).
- The case was allowed to proceed beyond the pleading stage; the court did not decide the ultimate legality of the practices on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Title II of the ADA applies to “public entities” engaged in professional licensing functions, including state bar admissions and related rulemaking and administration.
- At the pleading stage, a plaintiff states a Title II claim by alleging that a public entity imposed eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities and that such criteria are not necessary to the licensing program’s legitimate objectives.
- Injury under Title II may arise from allegedly discriminatory procedures and compelled disclosures (including burdensome differential scrutiny and loss of confidentiality), even without a final denial of licensure.
- A federal court may exercise jurisdiction over an ADA challenge to bar admissions procedures where the plaintiff alleges an ongoing discriminatory practice and seeks relief under federal law, notwithstanding defendants’ reliance on contrary authority from another jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The court held that bar applicants plausibly alleged that Florida’s mental-health questions and resulting mandatory disclosures and investigations could constitute unlawful disability-based screening under ADA Title II, and that the asserted burdens supplied justiciability; accordingly, the court denied dismissal and permitted the ADA challenge to proceed.


Ellen S. v. Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs, 859 F. Supp. 1489 (S.D. Fla. 1994)