Associate Dean Waterstone files amicus brief in Authors Guild v. HathiTrust

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

This week, along with some colleagues, I filed an amicus brief in the case of Authors Guild v. HathiTrust et. al. The case involves the cooperative efforts of Google and several universities to digitize their collections. Digital books are accessible to people with print disabilities, which is how I became involved in the case. The Authors Guild and other plaintiffs sued the Universities challenging this digitization under the Copyright Act. The National Federation of the Blind intervened in the case.

The HathiTrust is the name that those universities who received back from Google digital copies of their print libraries gave themselves. The University of Michigan maintains the HathiTrust Digital Library for those 50+ schools, including its own digital collection of about 10 million titles. In the District Court, Judge Baer ruled that (1) the Americans with Disabilities Act imposes on a University to provide equal access to its library program when an accessible digital copy of its print library exists; (2) under the Chafee Amendment to the Copyright Act, the University of Michigan is an authorized entity that can distribute library copies of its print collection to persons with print disabilities in the United States because the ADA imposes on the University, a governmental or nonprofit entity, "a primary mission to provide specialized services relating to . . . education . . . or information access needs of blind and other persons with disabilities" and digital copies are a "specialized format" and (3) the creation and distribution of digital books without the permission of the copyright holder for use by those with print disabilities is a fair use under the Copyright Act.

Our amicus brief, filed on behalf of professors who teach and research in disability law, argues that Congress's goals in passing laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act was to transform the role of people with disabilities in society. Consistent with this, we explain that often times neutral laws of general applicability (like the Copyright Act) could be viewed as in apparent conflict with disability rights laws. We argue that in these instances, it is proper for courts to attempt to harmonize these laws to allow them both to accomplish their purposes, which is what the district court did here. The court was correct in considering the needs of people with disabilities in the analysis of the right to fair use, and by interpreting the Chafee Amendment to provide that the University of Michigan is an authorized entity that can distribute digital copies of books in its print collection to persons with print disabilities in the United States. Until we achieve a world where concepts like universal design are the norm, to meet Congress's goals of inclusion for people with disabilities, accessibility is achieved through modification and accommodation of existing structures, programs, services, and activities.

And That's What 'Glee' Missed on 'Glee'

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

This op-ed originally appeared in the April 24, 2013 edition of the Daily Journal.

Last week's episode of the popular TV show "Glee" dealt with the issue of gun violence. At the high school where the show is set, two random gun shots are fired. Terrified, everyone shelters in place until the SWAT team gives the all clear. Police search for the culprit. Later, it is revealed that the shots were inadvertently fired by Becky, a character with Down's syndrome. Scared and frustrated that her high school experience was ending, and facing what she believed to be an uncertain future, she decided to bring a gun to school.

"Glee" has received praise and awards for how it contributes to society's understanding of people with disabilities. One of the main characters on "Glee," Artie, uses a wheelchair (although the actor who plays Artie does not). The show has gracefully managed the line between highlighting how thoughtless socially constructed barriers can make Arnie's life difficult, but for the most part, he is just one of the gang going through what all the characters go through: falling in love, deciding what he wants to be, and always singing and dancing. Similarly, having Becky, a character (and actor) with Down's syndrome, allows an exploration of the sometimes stigmatizing ways in which people perceive her, while also allowing her to be a high school student trying to find her way in life. The show does not revolve around these disabilities, but neither does it ignore them.

Disability and Sports

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

On Friday, the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, issued a guidance detailing the obligations of public elementary and secondary schools to allow students with disabilities to have equal opportunities to participate in extracurricular programs, primarily sporting and athletic activities. I wrote my first law review article on the case of Casey Martin, a golfer with a disability who requested the use of a golf cart in PGA play as a reasonable accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Martin eventually won in the Supreme Court.

My first impression about the Education Department's guidance was (happy) surprise that it generated so much media attention (it was picked up in numerous national outlets, including here, here, and here). Sports are important in our society, and the benefits of youth participation in athletic activities are well documented. Too often, as the United States Government Accountability Office found in a recent report, students with disabilities have been excluded from these benefits. So I am gratified that the US Department of Education is using its platform to provide leadership in this area.

But I think it is too early to know exactly what this guidance will mean. Disability advocates are comparing it to an earlier Education Department guidance under Title IX instructing schools to treat female athletics on par with male teams. That effort transformed our society, and every time I coach my six-year old daughter's softball or soccer team I am grateful for it. I am hopeful, but not necessarily optimistic, that this will be the ADA equivalent. This guidance does not break any new ground: it merely clarifies existing legal obligations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which is hardly a new law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which also requires schools to grapple with the integration of students with disabilities into school life, has absolutely been a transformative statute. But implementation has been slow, and the law is still underenforced.

Introducing Our Inaugural Guest Alumni Blogger

This month, we are delighted to roll out what will be a regular feature of our blog: a guest alumni blogger. Our alumni network at Loyola is an integral part of our law school. And I can think of no one better to be our inaugural guest alumni blogger than Brian Kabateck. Brian is founding and managing partner at Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP. He is an important voice in consumer rights and the current president of the Consumer Attorneys of California. He is also a good friend of our law school and someone whom we are proud to call our own. Over the next month, we look forward to his observations on consumer protection and other areas.

-Associate Dean Michael Waterstone-

Key Moment for U.S. and International Disability Rights

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

On Monday, the Senate will vote on the whether or not to move ahead with ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. President Obama has already signed this treaty, and, as I have argued before, I believe the Senate should ratify it. I have published an op-ed with the Pacific Standard here on Republican opposition to ratification and why I believe it is flawed.

Disability and Voting

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

My primary research area, disability law, typically doesn't garner a lot of headlines or attention in presidential elections. There was a National Forum on Disability Issues in September of 2012 where both candidates were invited, but neither showed up (President Obama was represented by Ted Kennedy, Jr. and Governor Romney was represented by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)). In a way this is understandable -- disability is a less contentious civil rights issue than some other areas. It may just be a perception that there is less to fight about (and a good fight is what really draws media attention).

But there are certainly many important issues relevant to people with disabilities that are at stake in this election. A major one is health care. The provision of the Affordable Care Act that stops insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions can help people with disabilities move in and out of the labor force without losing their health insurance. This approach, I have argued elsewhere, is part of the explanation of the higher rate of veterans with disabilities, who have access to the VA for some healthcare services. Governor Romney seemed to suggest that his healthcare proposals would also cover people with preexisting conditions, but most analyses I have seen refute this, at least to the extent that it would help people with long term disabilities be more fluid in and out of jobs. Another issue of importance to the disability community is the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. President Obama signed the treaty and has urged ratification; as far as I could find, Governor Romney has taken no public position on the issue.

But in this blog post, I'd like to focus on an issue that comes before both of these -- voting for people with disabilities. Given the recent focus on the administration of elections (mostly, as my former colleague Rick Hasen has profiled, based on hazy and unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud), this is timely.

Introducing "Blogging the Ballot" election series

With election season in full swing and the final presidential debate tonight, I have asked several colleagues to write blog posts on election-related issues within their respective areas of expertise. Through this series, "Blogging the Ballot," we will provide legal commentary that tracks the political issues. We will be posting every few days until the election on a broad range of issues, including election administration, human trafficking, foreign policy and free speech. And depending on what happens Nov. 6, we will continue to post relevant opinions. So please keep checking back as we continue Blogging the Ballot!

-Professor Michael Waterstone, Associate Dean for Research and Academic Centers

Disability Treaty Makes Progress

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

Last week, the United States Senate held an important hearing on the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The UNCRPD was adopted in December 2006, making it the fastest negotiated human rights treaty in UN history. There are currently 153 signatories to the Convention (with 117 countries having ratified) and 90 signatories to the Optional Protocol (with 66 countries having ratified). President Obama signed the treaty shortly after entering office, and this hearing is the first significant step toward ratification. An account of the hearing by Professor Gerard Quinn (one of the intellectual founders of international disability law) can be found here.

Loyola has been an important center of developing knowledge about the Convention. In March of 2010, we had the privilege of hosting a symposium entitled "The Significance of the United Nations Convention on the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities." We were able to bring together a unique collection of participants from all over the world. We were fortunate to have influential academics, key policymakers, individuals who were active in the negotiations and officials who will be responsible for implementing and monitoring the UNCRPD in countries throughout the world. Consistent with the mantra "Nothing about us without us," many of our participants were people with disabilities or individuals with family members who have disabilities. Our speakers performed the crucial function of telling and dissecting the story of the Convention's origins, navigating through the UN processes, eventual adoption and entry into force, and the beginning work of implementation and enforcement. They also offered candid assessments of the Convention's ability to create change, and its successes and shortcomings as an international human rights instrument. You can find the papers from this symposium, which have been widely cited and influential in policy development, here.

The First Faculty Series Downtown

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

We're proud of our new Loyola Law School Downtown Public Interest Law Center at 800 South Figueroa Street in the heart of downtown Los Angeles. The Center houses our Disability Rights Legal Center and the Center for Conflict Resolution. Last week, we hosted the first of our "Loyola Faculty Downtown" series at the Center. Professor Laurie Levenson spoke to an audience of alumni about cutting-edge issues in Criminal Law. We look forward to hosting at least one session a semester for our alumni in the Los Angeles area. If you have any ideas or faculty you would like to hear from, please let me know!

Coleman and the Perils of New Federalism

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

Waterstone is guest blogging this month at PrawfsBlawg, on which this piece first appeared.

The Supreme Court announced its decision today in Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland. For reasons I will explain below, I disagree with the plurality decision and think it is one of a growing trend of harmful and indefensible "new federalism" decisions. Spoiler alert: I think Justice Scalia makes a fine point about this jurisprudence in his concurring opinion.

First, the facts: Plaintiff had sued his state employer for damages, alleging that it violated the "self-care" part of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which entitles an employee to take up to 12 weeks unpaid leave per year for the employee's own serious health condition. In Nevada v. Hibbs, the Court had upheld the constitutionality of suits for damages against states for FMLA's "family care" provisions, which guarantee unpaid leave for the care of a newborn child, adoption or foster care placement of a child, or care of a spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious medical condition. But in Coleman, the Court held that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority with the "self-care" provision. Accordingly, the state is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and the plaintiff's suit for damages is dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds.

In Coleman, the Court held that unlike the family care provision, the self-care provision failed the apparently now sacrosanct City of Boerne congruence and proportionality standard. Under this standard, the Court will assess the evil or wrong Congress attempted to remedy and the means Congress adopted to address that evil. Legislation enacted under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment must be targeted at conduct transgressing the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive provisions and the Court must find that there is congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to achieve that end.

Fast Track Litigation? Rebuttable Presumption in Your Favor? Not Interested...

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

Waterstone is guest blogging this month at PrawfsBlawg, on which this piece first appeared.

Here in California, for some time there has been a fairly fierce debate raging between one segment of the plaintiff's bar and the business community relating to disability access litigation. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law, requires privately owned places of public accommodation (restaurants, movie theaters, bowling alleys, etc.) to be accessible to people with disabilities. The reach of the statute is broad, but the remedies are pretty weak - only injunctions are available. Given the Court's decision in Buckhannon combined with the lack of a damage remedy, often times these are not profitable cases for private attorneys to take, even if they are potentially meritorious.

But under California state law (which offers more protection for people with disabilities than federal law), plaintiffs can get damages for inaccessible privately owned places of public accommodation. Enter a segment of the plaintiff's bar, which brings large number of these cases, often times going after small businesses, and in some instances using questionable demand methods. The business community claims they are being extorted for small "ticky tack" violations which drive their cost of business through the roof (and point to unethical behavior by at least some attorneys/clients who have claimed multiple injuries in multiple places at the same time). Some segments of the disability rights community counter that a violation, no matter how small, can and does have exclusionary and harmful effects on people with disabilities; and that these laws are not new and are not optional. A balanced discussion of the issue can be found here.

In California, one legislative reaction to this situation was SB 1608, which, amongst other things, limited damages and created the California Commission on Disability Access to further study the situation. But I'd like to focus on one other aspect of the SB 1608: it created a program encouraging businesses to hire "certified access specialists" to inspect their businesses for compliance before any litigation. If a business is inspected, they receive an automatic 90-day stay of any lawsuit and may go directly to an early evaluation conference run by the court.

Making Things Right, Many Years Later

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

A state task force in North Carolina recently recommended that victims of forced sterilization receive compensation. Today, the idea of the state medically taking away someone's right to procreate against their will seems impossible, even barbaric. But from the 1930s to the late 1970s, North Carolina, like 32 other states, used the now-discredited science of eugenics to justify mandatory sterilization of people with mental disabilities, criminals and other undesirables. The idea was to prevent those who were "unfit" from continuing "their own kind." All in all, more than 60,000 people in the United States were sterilized without their consent.

Why does this matter today? Happily, states do not do this anymore (although North Carolina's forced-sterilization statute remained on the books until 2003). Nevertheless, North Carolina's proposed action here is important for three reasons. First, it sheds light on a practice that is too often neglected in the history books. Reparations of this sort are politically difficult - no doubt, some citizens of North Carolina are wondering why their tax money should go to righting some wrong they were not a part of, instead of toward schools, roads, prisons and other needed areas. But when a state actively participates in an atrocity toward it citizens, it has a moral obligation to make amends and to ensure it never happens again. An action like this - sure to be controversial - puts this issue back in the public eye, and increases the likelihood that it will be a part of how people think about abuses of state authority, even when it is uncomfortable to do so. North Carolina should be lauded for taking steps to do the right thing here.

Second, the issue of people being discriminated against on the basis of their genetic conditions has not gone away even though eugenics has been thoroughly discredited. More than 90 percent of Americans report being fearful of taking genetic tests out of concern that their employer or insurance company will discriminate against them if they show a genetic predisposition to develop certain diseases. In response to this, Congress passed the Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act, making it unlawful for employers or insurance companies to discriminate against individuals on the basis of their genetic information. Although it passed Congress with broad consensus, this law was criticized for not responding to any real need and being a "remedy in search of a problem." North Carolina's forthright attempts to deal with its history of this type of discrimination shows these worries are not merely hypothetical.

Finally, discrimination against people with disabilities - particularly individuals with mental disabilities - still happens. Yet courts have taken a limited view of this problem. In fact, the Supreme Court expressly sanctioned state mandatory sterilization laws like North Carolina's, noting that "three generations of imbeciles are enough." This case has never been explicitly overruled, and the Supreme Court has continued to maintain that there is no history of prejudice and laws intended to harm people with mental disabilities. Courts continue to review state actions drawing classifications on the basis of mental disability with their most lenient interpretative methods, employing rational basis review, whereby any state action that is rational will be upheld. Eugenics laws like those that existed in North Carolina remind us that the court has made a mistake here, and that it should more carefully scrutinize existing laws and policies - including laws relating to voting, capacity and institutionalization - that continue to operate against the rights of individuals with mental disabilities.

At this point, the North Carolina legislature still needs to approve the payment of compensation to victims of forced sterilization. But North Carolina deserves praise for taking the steps it has already taken, which should encourage the other 32 states to follow suit. And it should finish the job by approving payments to individuals who were harmed in this grievous manner by official and deliberate state actions.

Genetic discrimination in the United States and Europe

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

Would you be comfortable taking a genetic test to see if you had a genetic predisposition to certain diseases? Even if your doctors tell you it might be medically useful, would you be concerned that the results might somehow come back to harm you? Perhaps your employer might find out the results, and, depending on the results, worry about your future productivity? Or would you be concerned that your insurance company could find out and use this information to raise your health insurance rates?

Ninety percent of Americans feel that taking genetic tests leaves them open to this type of genetic discrimination. In response to these fears, and based on the observations of doctors that patients were not getting genetic information for medical purposes and not participating in research studies, Congress passed the Genetic Information Discrimination Act ("GINA"), which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of a person's genetic information in employment and in the provision of health insurance. Although GINA has been on the books since 2008, a recent survey found only 16 percent of people surveyed knew its protections existed. As in all areas, law takes time to work its way into culture.

I recently attended a conference in Ireland on the need for a European framework to deal with the problems of genetic discrimination in Ireland, cosponsored by the Centre for Disability Law and Policy, National University of Ireland, Galway and the Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University. The audience was academics, policymakers and government officials. The chair was Justice John McMenamin of the Irish High Court, and Marian Harkin, a member of the European Parliament, was in attendance. The conference got a nice write up in the Irish Times.

Loyola of Los Angeles releases inaugural Supreme Court issue

I am pleased to announce that the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review has just released its inaugural Supreme Court issue.

This issue is dedicated to Justice Stevens and includes letters from President Bill Clinton, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as well as letters and essays written by Justice Stevens' former clerks Susan R. Estrich, Michael J. Gottlieb, Abner S. Greene, Jamal Greene, Melissa Hart, Amanda Leiter, Gregory P. Magarian, Nancy S. Marder, David Pozen, Adam M. Samaha and Samuel Spital.

The inaugural foreword was contributed by Erwin Chemerinsky, and Bill Araiza and Matt Vega also wrote articles. Numerous Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review editors wrote case comments for this issue.

We are proud of the contribution we believe this volume will make. If you would like a copy, please let me know.

--Professor Michael Waterstone, associate dean for research and academic centers

Prof. Waterstone on AAPD v. Harris

By Professor Michael Waterstone

Thanks to Dan and Rick for inviting me to post on the recent opinion in AAPD v. Harris. As Dan notes, the wheels of justice have moved slowly on this case. The original district court opinion (from 2004) is in an earlier edition of my disability law casebook. It held that voting machines requiring voters with visual impairments to vote with third-party assistance violated Title II of the ADA. The Eleventh Circuit previously reversed the district court, holding that plaintiffs did not have a private right of action to enforce the ADA. This decision holds that voting machines are not a facility and therefore are not covered by one of the regulations implementing Title II of the ADA.

Plaintiffs made three specific claims under the ADA. This first is premised on the actual language of the statute. Title II of the ADA (the operative title here) provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." Plaintiffs' argument is that inaccessible machines prevent them from participating in voting (a public program) in the same manner as citizens without disabilities.

Read the complete post on the Election Law Blog.

Disability rights throughout the world

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

With the passage of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, states across the world are thinking about how their laws and policies concerning people with disabilities comport with this new international standard. Although the United States was not a leader in the UN negotiations, and we have not yet ratified the Convention (although the Obama administration has signed the Convention and urged the Senate to ratify), one domestic based group has been an innovator in working with states on drafting, revising, and implementing disability laws.

This group is the Harvard Project on Disability ("HPOD"). Some nice profiles of their work can be found here and here. HPOD is working with governments and grassroots groups in countries across the world to help develop capacity and technical assistance. In so doing, it is training a new generation of advocates who have the capability to participate and lead a worldwide discussion.

Loyola Law School has collaborated with the Harvard Project on Disability on several projects. I have been fortunate to accompany team members from the Harvard Project on Disability to Vietnam and Bangladesh to assist in their work, with another trip to China planned in the Spring. It has been a transformative experience in my own life. I have seen how some of the most severely disabled, poorest, and most discriminated against people I have ever met can be the fiercest advocates, and rise above their circumstances with the goal of improving their own lives and those of future generations of people with disabilities. I have met government officials who truly would like to pass and enforce legislation which would make people with disabilities more fully members of the citizenry, and are working within their limited resources to do so. These experiences have reaffirmed my belief in international law - the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been a catalyst for change across the world, and has given advocates another important tool to use to get their governments to respond. And it has reminded me that what we do domestically matters - people all over the world look up to the United States on disability policy, and seek to replicate our successes and avoid our failures.

Wal-Mart and the Future of Employment Discrimination Class Action Law

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

This is another installment in the Summary Judgments summer series, "The Headline Club," in which Loyola Law School professors will discuss legal issues ripped from the front page.

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided Wal-Mart v. Dukes, reversing the Ninth Circuit's certification of a historically large class of women claiming sex discrimination against Wal-Mart. Employment discrimination lawyers have been eagerly awaiting the result in this case, realizing that either way, it would be determinative of the future of employment discrimination class actions (and maybe even class actions in other areas of law).

Other commentators whose views I respect have been quicker than me, and already weighed in on various parts of the Wal-Mart opinion - noting the Court's adverse reaction to the potential size and complexity of the class, the commonality analysis, and the Court's treatment of the social science evidence. Following up on an earlier post about this case, I write here to add my own voice to this chorus.

One issue in Dukes was whether this action - brought for injunctive relief, but also including claims for backpay - could be certified as a class action under 23(b)(2). This turned out to not be much of a fault line, as the Court unanimously held that claims for monetary relief may not be certified under Rule23(b)(2), holding that the claims for backpay were not incidental to the requested injunctive or declaratory relief. Fair enough: plaintiffs had tried to finesse this by not including claims for compensatory damages, which there was clear consensus was not enough. Future plaintiffs attempting reform litigation could choose to completely forego damage claims and focus on injunctive relief. Assuming some lawyer somewhere would take that case, but for the second part of the opinion - discussed below - this possibility would technically be open.

For veterans with mental illnesses, court reluctantly steps in where Congress should have

By Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

A recent Ninth Circuit decision is part of a long-standing debate about the difference between our stated commitment to take care of disabled veterans, and what really happens on the ground.

A group of veterans sued the Department of Veterans Affairs, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy delays in the provision of mental health care and the adjudication of service-connected death and disability compensation claims by the VA. The Veterans argued that these delays violated their due process rights to receive the care and benefits they are guaranteed by statute. The case dramatically demonstrated the nature of the delays: for example, it takes an average of more than four years for a veteran to fully adjudicate a claim for benefits (during which time many are mooted by deaths). The court was explicit that these delays were not in keeping with our country's stated commitment to veterans, writing "on an average day, eighteen veterans of our nation's armed forces take their own lives. ... Among all veterans enrolled in the VA system, an additional 1,000 attempt suicide each month. Although the VA is obligated o provide veterans mental health services, many veterans with severe depression or post-traumatic stress disorder are forced to wait weeks for mental health referrals and are given no opportunity to request or demonstrate their need for expedited care. For those who commit suicide in the interim, care does not come soon enough."

So the VA is a mess (which is not new news). What to do about it? The court struggled here, noting that "we would have preferred Congress or the President to have remedied the VA's egregious problems without our intervention when evidence of the Department's harmful shortcomings and its failure to properly address the needs of our veterans came to light years ago." The court was also cognizant that it was not really the ideal branch of government to address these problems. But ultimately, the court viewed these delays as violating the plaintiff's constitutional rights "to be free from unjustified governmental deprivation of property - including the health care and benefits that our laws guarantee veterans upon completion of their service."

Introducing 'The Headline Club' summer series

Following up on our successful "11 on 11" series in which Loyola faculty weighed in on the top issues in their fields this year, this summer we will be starting a new series, "The Headline Club." One of the things that makes our academic community unique is how involved our colleagues are in real-life issues. Often these are issues that play out in the public eye. "The Headline Club" will feature blog posts by our colleagues on hot topics taken from the headlines. These will include everything from Supreme Court opinions, to legal twists on news stories, to how their scholarship relates to something on the front page.

The introductory post in this series will be from my colleague, Marcy Strauss, who will discuss the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment case Kentucky v. King.

Thanks again for visiting our site, and we hope you continue to visit us often this summer!

-Professor Michael Waterstone, Associate Dean for Research and Academic Centers

For a profession steeped in justice, now better access to it

By Professor Michael Waterstone

This column was originally published in the Jan. 28 edition of the Los Angeles Daily Journal.

People with disabilities face many barriers to becoming lawyers. Applications to law school, which are primarily found online, may not be accessible to blind individuals. For law students with disabilities, a law school may disagree on what accommodations are required for law school exams. There are few clubs or support structures in law schools for these students, in part because their numbers are so few. This in turn, creates feelings of isolation and aloneness. After graduation, law students with disabilities can face invasive questions on their bar applications, such as inquiries as to treatment or counseling for mental, emotional or nervous disorders. These students have to spend significant amounts of their own money documenting their disabilities. Even after they become licensed, lawyers with disabilities report prejudice and stigma: More than half of lawyers with disabilities polled by the State Bar reported being denied employment opportunities because of their disabilities.

Although good data is hard to come by, one study found that only 7 percent of the members of the American Bar Association identified themselves as having a disability (far below the rate of disability prevalence in the general population). This is a problem for our profession. Laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act have brought more people with disabilities into the mainstream of American life, opening up new opportunities across the spectrum. This means that more of our clients have disabilities, and there are more issues relating to disability that are part of general legal issues. Lawyers with disabilities have a life experience that is crucial to working on these legal problems.