Kohn v. State Bar of California

Background

Benjamin Kohn sued the State Bar of California and the California Committee of Bar Examiners, alleging seven violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and seven corresponding violations of California’s Unruh Act. Kohn is a law school graduate who registered for the October 2020 California bar examination and has autism, neurological and attention disorders, digestive-system conditions, and eye conditions, according to the opinion.

Kohn had previously taken the California bar examination in July 2018, February 2019, and February 2020, and did not pass those administrations. He requested disability accommodations for each exam. The defendants granted some accommodations, including extra time, use of a laptop, permission to bring certain items into the exam room, and other accommodations. They denied or did not grant all of his requested accommodations.

For the October 2020 exam, Kohn submitted an accommodation request in March 2020 and later added medical evidence in June and July. The defendants told him that the Committee would consider his submissions at its August 21, 2020 meeting. On July 27, the defendants said they would grant accommodations previously granted to him but deny requests for additional accommodations, while confirming that the Committee would still hear his appeal and consider his new materials at the August meeting.

Motion and legal standard

Kohn sought a preliminary injunction, which is a temporary court order intended to preserve the parties’ positions until a final judgment. He asked the court either to order the defendants to grant his requested accommodations or to require the Committee to decide his petition promptly and provide an appeal decision no later than three weeks before the October exam.

The court explained that a preliminary injunction generally requires a showing that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer harm that cannot be repaired later, that the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff, and that an injunction serves the public interest. The court also described an alternative standard involving serious questions about the merits and a sharply favorable balance of hardships, together with likely irreparable harm and service to the public interest.

Ripeness analysis

The defendants argued that the motion was not ripe. Ripeness is a requirement that a dispute be sufficiently concrete and developed for judicial decision, rather than based on a possible future event.

The court held that the motion was not constitutionally ripe because the Committee had not issued a final decision on Kohn’s complete accommodation petition. The Committee had already granted several accommodations, and the remaining requests were still scheduled for consideration. The court therefore found that Kohn’s alleged injury was hypothetical or abstract rather than definite and concrete.

The court also considered prudential ripeness, which concerns whether the issues are sufficiently developed for decision and whether delaying review would cause undue hardship. It found that the issues were not fit for decision because Kohn’s recent medical submissions had not yet been evaluated and the Committee had not made a decision based on them. The court stated that the Committee, which uses expert consultants to evaluate medical accommodation requests, was the appropriate body to develop the factual record first.

The court concluded that delaying review would not impose an undue hardship on Kohn. It noted that the State Bar’s rules provided an administrative appeal process after a petition was denied or granted with modifications, and that further review could be sought from the California Supreme Court after the Committee affirmed a denial or modification. The court also found no convincing reason why the Committee could not consider the petition on August 21, issue a decision soon afterward, and leave time for an appeal.

Disposition

The court disposed of the motion on ripeness grounds and did not consider the parties’ remaining arguments. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Kohn’s motion for a preliminary injunction.