## Facts

- Kirk D. Jenkins was a medical student diagnosed with a reading disorder that impaired his ability to process written words and to read at the same speed as most adults.
- Despite the diagnosis, Jenkins could read common materials that typical adults read, such as newspapers, restaurant menus, and mail, although he did so more slowly and with greater effort.
- Jenkins had received extended-time testing accommodations in the past on standardized exams, including the ACT and the MCAT.
- Jenkins planned to take Step 1 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), administered by the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME).
- Jenkins requested a testing accommodation of time-and-a-half to complete Step 1.
- NBME denied the request after internal review.
- Jenkins sued NBME under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), seeking injunctive relief requiring NBME to provide the requested extra time.

## Issues

1. Whether Jenkins’s reading disorder substantially limited the major life activity of reading, such that he qualified as an individual with a disability under the ADA (as interpreted before the ADA Amendments Act of 2008).
2. Whether difficulty performing on a strictly timed professional licensing exam, without evidence of being barred from everyday reading tasks central to most people’s daily lives, is enough to establish an ADA-covered disability.
3. Whether Jenkins was entitled to injunctive relief compelling NBME to provide time-and-a-half on USMLE Step 1.

## Decision

- The court denied Jenkins’s request for injunctive relief.
- The court held that Jenkins did not prove he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA because his impairment did not substantially limit reading as compared to most people in the general population.
- The court concluded that Jenkins’s difficulty reading under time pressure did not, by itself, show a substantial limitation in reading as a major life activity.
- The court dismissed the action with prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- To obtain ADA-based testing accommodations, a plaintiff must first establish that he is an individual with a disability—i.e., that he has an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
- Under the pre-ADAAA standard applied by the district court (including the approach stated in *Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams*), “substantially limits” is assessed by asking whether the impairment prevents or severely restricts activities central to most people’s daily lives.
- The relevant comparison for substantial limitation is to most people in the general population, not to a select group such as medical students or other high-achieving exam takers.
- Evidence that a plaintiff can perform routine reading tasks (such as reading menus, newspapers, or letters), even if more slowly, weighs against finding a substantial limitation in the major life activity of reading.
- Limits that appear primarily in high-stakes, timed testing conditions may show a disadvantage in that setting, but do not necessarily establish a substantial limitation in a major life activity under the pre-ADAAA ADA.

## Conclusion

The district court concluded that Jenkins’s reading disorder was real and could hinder his performance on a strictly timed licensing exam, but he failed to show that the condition substantially limited his reading in the manner required under the pre-ADAAA ADA because he could still perform ordinary reading tasks typical of daily life; therefore, he was not an individual with a disability under that standard, and the court denied an injunction requiring NBME to grant time-and-a-half on USMLE Step 1 and dismissed the case with prejudice.


Jenkins v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10905 (2008)