In re Chavis

486 Md. 247

306 A.3d 653

In the MATTER OF Antavis CHAVIS

Misc. No. 65, Sept. Term, 2022

Supreme Court of Maryland.

December 21, 2023

Argued by Steven M. Klepper (Kramon & Graham, P.A., Baltimore, MD), for Applicant.

Argued by James O. Spiker, IV, Deputy Chief Counsel (Office of the Attorney General, Office of Courts and Judicial Affairs), for State Board of Law Examiners.

Argued before: Fader, C.J., Watts, Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, JJ.

Watts, J.

Before us are the exceptions under Maryland Rule 19-208(c) of Antavis Chavis,¹ an applicant to the Bar of Maryland, to the recommendation of a panel of the Accommodations Review Committee (“the, ARC”) to uphold the decision of the State Board of Law Examiners (“SBLE”) denying Mr. Chayis’s request for a test accommodation in the form of 50% additional time to take the Uniform Bar Examination (“the UBE”). Mr. Chavis made the test accommodation request under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“the ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12218, and, in doing so, disclosed that he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). Together with his test accommodation request, Mr. Chavis provided an “ADHD Verification Form” completed by a medical doctor who diagnosed him with ADHD and recommended that he be provided additional time to take law school exams. Mr. Chavis also provided documentation showing that both of the two law schools that he attended had provided him with 50% additional time to take exams;

Although for slightly different reasons than those set forth in, his exceptions, we conclude that, Mr. Chavis has met the burden to prove that he is an individual with a condition that meets the definition of “disability” under the ADA and that the test accommodation that he requested would be “reasonable, consistent with the nature and purpose of the examination and necessitated by [his] disability.” Bd. R. 3(a). Accordingly, we sustain Mr. Chavis’s exceptions, reverse SBLE’s decision, and remand the matter to SBLE with instruction to grant Mr. Chavis’s test accommodation request.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Chavis’s Test Accommodation Request and Supporting Documentation

From Fall 2019 through Fall 2022, Mr. Chavis took classes at Southern University Law Center, from which he ultimately graduated. In Spring 2023, as a visiting student, Mr. Chavis took classes at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law. In an SBLE form titled “Applicant’s Request for A.D.A. Test Accommodations for the UBE in Maryland” completed on March 27, 2023, Mr. Chavis requested additional time to take the UBE, “preferably 50% [a]dditional time[.]” In the form, Mr. Chavis disclosed that he has ADHD and “[i]ssues with focus” and that he requires “a significant amount of time to complete tasks[.]”

In support of, his test accommodation request, Mr. Chavis attached an ADHD Verification Form produced by Southern University Law Center. On August 26, 2022, Jeffrey Thiebaud, M.D., completed the ADHD Verification Form, finding that Mr. Chavis met the “full [ ] criteria” set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (“DSM-IV”) for “ADHDE[,] inattentive type”²—i.e., Dr. Thiebaud diagnosed Mr. Chavis with ADHD. In response to a question asking: “What evidence has been reviewed to indicate that ADHD symptoms cause the applicant difficulty taking tests?”, Dr. Thiebaud wrote: “Personal experience and neuropsychiatric testing[.]” Dr. Thiebaud indicated that Mr. Chavis’s self-reported symptoms of ADHD included “poor attention and focus[,]” taking “longer to complete tasks[,]” and often not completing “tasks due to distraction[,]” and that he was first diagnosed with ADHD at age 8. Dr. Thiebaud stated that Mr. Chavis’s symptoms of ADHD were not limited to academic environments, and that he had difficulty completing tasks, and often left them undone, at work and at home. Dr. Thiebaud also noted that Mr. Chavis had taken Adderall, which is a prescription medication used to treat ADHD. See Rochkind v. Stevenson, 454 Md. 277, 282, 164 A.3d 254, 256 (2017).

Dr. Thiebaud recommended that Mr. Chavis be given “additional time to complete exams and [an] isolated testing environment to limit distractions[,] if possible.” Dr. Thiebaud stated that Mr. Chavis would “be adversely affected if not given additional time.” Dr. Thiebaud explained that ADHD, inattentive type, “typically responds well to accommodations.”

In addition to the ADHD Verification Form that Dr. Thiebaud completed, Mr. Chavis attached to his test accommodation request a memorandum dated September 6, 2022 from Dorothy Straughter-Parker, the Health, Wellness, and Disability Director of Southern University Law Center. In the memorandum, consistent with Dr. Thiebaud’s recommendation, Ms. Straughter-Parker advised Mr. Chavis that her office would grant his request for test accommodations, and that he would be given 50% additional time to take exams and quizzes and the ability to take them in a low-distraction testing room. Ms. Straughter-Parker indicated that these accommodations were required by 29 U.S.C. § 794, which Congress enacted through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.³

Mr. Chavis also attached to his test accommodation request a memorandum dated January 25, 2023 from Pamela Butler, a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor of the Accessibility Resource Center at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law. In the memorandum, consis- tent with Dr. Thiebaud’s recommendation, Ms. Butler advised that Mr. Chavis was to be provided the following accommodations: 50% additional time to take exams and quizzes, the ability to take them in a reduced-distraction room, the ability to take five- to ten-minute breaks during classes and tests, and the use of two pieces of assistive technology, including one designed to assist with notetaking. Ms. Butler indicated that these accommodations were required by the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Dr. Lewandowski’s Opinions and SBLE’s Decision

On April 11, 2023, SBLE received Mr. Chavis’s test accommodation request form. Under Board Rule 3(c)(2), SBLE referred Mr. Chavis’s test accommodation request to Lawrence Lewandowski, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist. Board Rule 3(c)(2) states that, where “there is uncertainty about whether the requested test accommodation is warranted pursuant to the ADA, the applicant’s request and all supporting documentation may be referred to a qualified expert retained by [SBLE] to review and analyze whether the applicant has documented a disability and requested a reasonable accommodation.”

In a letter to SBLE’s Director of Character and Fitness dated May 24, 2023, Dr. Lewandowski opined that Mr. Chavis did “not qualify for test accommodations.” Without providing a citation, Dr. Lewandowski stated that, for an applicant to qualify for a test accommodation, the circumstances must satisfy two criteria: (1) the applicant has “an evidence-based diagnosis of a mental or physical disorder from a qualified professional”; and (2) “the disorder substantially limits them in a major life activity as compared to most people.” Addressing the first criterion, Dr. Lewandowski stated that, although the documentation provided by Mr. Chavis contained “some support for the ADHD diagnosis,” there was “no objective data to prove the validity of the diagnosis[,]” and he could not “confirm the diagnosis based on the little information in th[e] file.” Dr. Lewandowski stated that, “[m]ore importantly, the second criterion [wa]s not addressed by the current documen- tation” and that there was “no demonstration of impairment in attention, processing speed, reading, writing, or any other function required on the” UBE.

In a letter to Mr. Chavis dated May 31, 2023, SBLE’s Director of Character and Fitness⁴ advised that SBLE had denied his test accommodation request. SBLE quoted some of Dr. Lewandowski’s opinions about Mr. Chavis’s request, and advised that Mr. Chavis did not qualify for a test accommodation “[i]n the absence of objective data to prove the ADHD diagnosis and establish impairment in a major life activity as compared to most people[.]”

Mr. Chavis’s Appeal to the ARC and Proceedings in This Court

In a document received by SBLE on June 12, 2023, under Maryland Rule 19-208(b)(1), Mr. Chavis noted an appeal to the ARC. Maryland Rule 19-208(a)(1) provides that the ARC is a committee that consists of nine members appointed by this Court.⁵ On July 12, 2023, a panel of the ARC⁶ conducted a hearing. Mr. Chavis, who represented himself at the time, and Dr. Lewandowski testified at the hearing.

Mr. Chavis’s testimony indicated that his path to law school was not an easy one. Mr. Chavis testified that, from a young age, he has struggled with focus, attention to detail, and day-to-day tasks. For instance, Mr. Chavis testified that it always took him “a longer time to complete tests” than other students. Mr. Chavis explained that when he was growing up, these issues, were seen as “a behavioral problem and not a learning disability.” Mr. Chavis testified, by way of illustration, that his mother used to say: “[T]here’s nothin[g] wrong with him. He just needs to work on it. He just needs to be disciplined and he’ll be fine.” Mr. Chavis observed that this was “not true.”

Mr. Chavis testified that he did not request test accommodations in high school or college because he “didn’t want anyone to think there was anything wrong with” him. Mr. Chavis explained that leaving a classroom to take a test would have been “embarrassing” when he was a child. And, doing so would have been “humiliating” when he was in college.

Mr. Chavis testified that before his last year of law school, however, he spoke to counselors and finally realized that he “needed to address the problem, and that there was no need to be embarrassed.” As a result, according to Mr. Chavis, he “did everything [he] could do to ensure that [he]...