Opinion ID: 1907643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constraints Imposed by the ADA

Text: The ADA was enacted to protect disabled Americans from discrimination. The act extends protection to qualified individuals who either have a physical or a mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity or have a record of such an impairment. Report at 2-3. To qualify for such protection, an individual must meet the essential eligibility requirements for receipt of services or for participation in a public entity's program, activities, or services. An individual who poses a direct threat to the health or the safety of others will not be qualified. A direct threat is defined as a significant risk that cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level by the modification of the public entity's policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services. Report at 4. The public entity's determination that a person poses a direct threat to the public may not be based on generalizations or stereotypes about the effect of a particular disability. A public entity may not make unnecessary inquiries into the existence of a disability nor may it discriminate on the basis of a disability in its licensing, certification, and regulatory activities. During the hiring process, public entities may ask about an applicant's ability to perform job-related functions but may not ask whether an applicant is disabled or inquire into the nature or severity of an applicant's disability. Report at 4-5. We are persuaded that the procedures required for admittance to the bar are the functional equivalent of a hiring process and that the committee operates as the equivalent of an employer when it screens applicants. Thus, we concur with the master's conclusion that the ADA applies to State Bar admissions. Because question Nos. 26, 29(a), and 29(b) ask about the existence of a disability or treatment, these questions may be deemed to violate the ADA, absent a showing of a direct threat to public safety if persons with a mental or an emotional disability or history of substance-abuse treatment are admitted to the bar. Report at 6-7. Specifically, the burden is on those who propose to ask the questions to show an actual relationship such that (1) applicants with mental-health-and substance-abuse-treatment histories actually pose an increased risk to the public, (2) the admission process has effectively protected the public by using question Nos. 26, 29(a), and 29(b) to identify those persons with mental-health-or substance-abuse-treatment histories who are a danger to the public, or (3) attorneys who have become a danger to the public in their practice of law, when retrospectively reviewed, could have been identified with any degree of reliability by such questions. Report at 6-7.