Not All Fun and Logic Games: The LSAT’s Attempt to Ensure Inclusivity through Reformation

Blog Post | 108 KY. L. J. ONLINE | November 12, 2019

Not All Fun and Logic Games: The LSAT’s Attempt to Ensure Inclusivity through Reformation

Paige Goins[1]

Nine years ago, law school hopeful Angelo Binno took the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), making strides toward a career he had dreamed of since his days in middle school.[2] As he progressed through the exam, Binno inevitably reached the infamous logic games section of the test and realized his unavoidable defeat.[3] Because of the nature of the logic game questions, drawing and diagramming is usually a requirement for a successful score.[4] Binno is legally blind, making the diagramming, and consequently the logic games portion as a whole, exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.[5] Binno reportedly received a “very low” score on the admissions exam as a result of the section[6] and further claims he was denied entry to three law schools because of his poor performance.[7]

Binno filed suit after the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) denied his accommodation request to waive the logic games portion of the exam, a refusal which Binno asserts violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[8] The ADA defines “disability” as (1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (2) a record of such an impairment; or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment.[9] Section 309 of the ADA’s Title III provides that any person who administers examinations related to applications of secondary/postsecondary education, professional, or trade purposes must do so in a place and manner that is accessible to persons with disabilities.[10] If accessibility is hindered, the examiner must offer alternative accessibility accommodations.[11] Section 503 of the ADA’s Title IV protects from interference with an individual’s enjoyment of any right the ADA protects.[12]

Binno argued because the LSAT required “spatial reasoning and visual diagramming for successful completion”, the admissions exam has a discriminatory effect on individuals with visual impairments, resulting in their poor performance.[13] This prevents those individuals from receiving admissions offers from accredited law schools, constituting a violation of Title III and IV of the ADA.[14]

Binno’s argument is not without merit. Legal blindness falls within the ADA’s definition of disability because it is a physical impairment that substantially limits Binno’s ability to see, which qualifies as a “major life activity” under the statute.[15] As to Section 309, LSAC has been administering a test that includes a lofty portion where success hinges upon hand-drawn, visual aids, impeding success for those with sight deficiencies.[16] LSAC had an option under the statute to continue operation with the embedded inaccessibility if they furnished an alternative accessible arrangement.[17] The Complaint states LSAC provided Binno with multiple accommodations such as a two-day examination period with breaks, 150% additional time per section, use of an Excel spreadsheet, screen-reading software, and a tactile system which one could argue were sufficient to shield LSAC from liability.[18] This argument is unpersuasive, however, as none of the provided accommodations were adequate remedies for Binno’s disability and therefore could not be reasonably presented as an alternative.[19] Finally, LSAC’s actions can be argued to violate Section 503 as administering the exam in such a manner interferes with Binno’s enjoyment of the right to take examinations without hinderance based upon his disability.[20]

Eight years after Binno filed suit, LSAC recently announced a settlement had been reached between the parties resulting in LSAC’s elimination of the logic games section, entirely.[21] LSAC maintains they will continue to test logical analytics in different ways that do not involve logic games and purports to include Binno and his co-plaintiff in the reformation process to ensure the new and improved examination’s inclusivity.[22]

[1] Staff Editor, Kentucky Law Journal, Volume 108; J.D. Candidate, The University of Kentucky College of Law (2021).

[2] Ryan Prior, A Lawsuit Argued the LSAT Discriminates Against the Blind. Now it’s Changing for Everyone, CNN (Oct. 10, 2019), https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/10/us/lsat-blind-people-trnd/index.html.

[3] Id.

[4] Staci Zaretsky, Major Changes Coming to the LSAT with Removal of Logic Games Section, Above the Law (Oct. 8, 2019), https://abovethelaw.com/2019/10/major-changes-coming-to-the-lsat-with-removal-of-logic-games-section/.

[5] Id.

[6] Stephanie Francis Ward, After Losing LSAT Lawsuit Against the ABA, Legally Blind Man Sues LSAC, ABA J. (May 18, 2017), http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/after_losing_lsat_lawsuit_against_the_aba_legally_blind_man_sues_lsac.

[7] Binno v. ABA, 826 F.3d 338, 341 (6th Cir. 2016).

[8] Nyman Turkish PC, Statement on the Amicable Resolution of Binno v. LSAC Lawsuit, Cision PR Newswire (Oct. 7, 2019), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-on-the-amicable-resolution-of-binno-v-lsac-lawsuit-300931402.html.

[9] Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) (2019).

[10] Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12189 (2019).

[11] Id.

[12] Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b) (2019).

[13] Binno, 826 F.3d at 341.

[14] Id.

[15] 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) (2019).

[16] Zaretsky, supra note 4.

[17] 42 U.S.C. § 12189 (2019).

[18] Complaint at 14, Binno v. LSAC, No. 2:17-cv-11553-SFC-RSW (E.D. Mich. May 16, 2017).

[19] Ward, supra note 6.

[20] 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b) (2019).

[21] Prior, supra note 2.

[22] Nyman Turkish PC, supra note 8.