## Facts

- Kirk D. Jenkins was a third-year medical student with a long-documented reading disorder that caused substantially slower reading speed, though he could comprehend complex material.
- The National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), a private nonprofit, administers the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE).
- Jenkins requested 50% extra time on USMLE Step 1 as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- After internal review, NBME denied the accommodation request.
- Jenkins sued in federal district court seeking injunctive relief requiring NBME to provide extra time on a future administration of Step 1.
- The district court, applying the then-governing standard from Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, held Jenkins was not “disabled” under the ADA and denied relief.
- While the appeal was pending, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) became effective (January 1, 2009) and rejected Toyota’s restrictive approach to “disability.”

## Issues

1. Whether the ADAAA applies to a pending case seeking prospective injunctive relief for a future testing accommodation, even though the accommodation denial occurred before the ADAAA’s effective date.
2. Whether the district court’s disability analysis must be reconsidered under the ADAAA’s expanded definition of “disability,” including “reading” as a major life activity and a less demanding “substantially limits” standard.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit applied the ADAAA because Jenkins sought prospective relief concerning future testing after the ADAAA’s effective date.
- The court vacated the district court’s judgment, which relied on the repudiated Toyota standard.
- The case was remanded for the district court to evaluate Jenkins’s claim under the ADA as amended by the ADAAA.
- The Sixth Circuit did not decide whether Jenkins was disabled under the amended statute or whether a particular accommodation was required.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate courts generally apply the law in effect at the time of decision unless doing so would cause manifest injustice or Congress clearly directs otherwise.
- A statutory amendment may apply in a pending case when the plaintiff seeks prospective relief governing future conduct after the amendment’s effective date, even if relevant events began earlier.
- The ADAAA requires that “disability” be construed in favor of broad coverage and rejects Toyota’s stringent “prevent or severely restrict” formulation for substantial limitation.
- When a lower court’s analysis rests on a legal standard later rejected by Congress, vacatur and remand are appropriate so the claim can be assessed under the current statutory framework.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that the ADAAA governed Jenkins’s request for future USMLE accommodations and therefore vacated the judgment denying relief and remanded for reconsideration under the ADA’s broadened post-amendment definition of disability.


Jenkins v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2660 (6th Cir. 2009)