Opinion ID: 4514513
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ADA Title V Claims

Text: With his Title V retaliation claim, Block alleges that TBLE retaliated against him for requesting a waiver of the active practice requirement by filing a complaint against him for the unauthorized practice of law. “Title V itself does not abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity. Instead, a plaintiff may bring 17 Lane, 541 U.S. at 532 (internal quotation marks omitted). 18 See, e.g., Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350, 361 (1977) (“[T]he regulation of the bar is at the core of the State’s power to protect the public.”); Goldfarb v. Va. State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792 (1975) (recognizing that states “have broad power to establish standards for licensing practitioners and regulating the practice of professions,” and “[t]he interest of States in regulating lawyers is especially great”). 19 Even assuming it were reasonable, Block’s claim still fails under the first prong. A “qualified individual” is a person with a disability who, “with or without reasonable modifications . . . meets the essential eligibility requirements” for participation in the public entity’s program. 42 U.S.C. § 12131; see also Lane, 541 U.S. at 532 (Title II requires reasonable modifications only when the person seeking them “is otherwise eligible for the service”). Recall that admission without examination also requires that an applicant have not previously failed the Texas bar exam. Block recently failed it twice. Even with his proposed modification, Block wouldn’t be eligible for admission without examination. 6 Case: 19-50286 Document: 00515339200 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/10/2020 No. 19-50286 a retaliation claim against a state entity only to the extent that the underlying claim of discrimination effectively abrogates sovereign immunity of the particular state.” 20 Because Block’s underlying Title II claim is barred by sovereign immunity, so is his Title V retaliation claim.