In a world suddenly uprooted by a global pandemic, law students’ “new normal” looks drastically different from the lives they lived mere months ago. Amidst becoming accustomed to virtual learning, an uncertain job market, and canceled graduations, recent law school graduates also face the challenge of navigating a remote bar exam. Measures implemented to prevent cheating on the exam leave many graduates with disabilities feeling “forgotten about and left to beg for [them]selves.”

Strict rules enforced during remote bar exams across the country include limited bathroom breaks, restricted use of scratch paper, and taking the exam through an online platform that requires test-takers to stay on camera during the majority of the test. These guidelines simply do not accommodate many people with disabilities. Among these potential test-takers are Kara Gordon, a recent law school graduate with a debilitating cerebrospinal fluid leak; Jordan Berger, a graduate with severe gastrointestinal problems; and Caitlyn Tallarico, a 2020 graduate with Type 1 diabetes. Their concerns include not being physically able to sit for an extended period of time, the need for unlimited bathroom breaks, and the online system used to monitor exam-takers that will flag the sound of Tallarico’s glucose monitor in the event she needs food or juice to increase her blood sugar level. A group of unsatisfied graduates in California recently took matters into their own hands.

On Monday, September 12, 2020, three law school graduates with disabilities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, filed a lawsuit against the State Bar of California and the National Conference of Board Examiners alleging “disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Act.” Judge Beeler denied the plaintiffs’ motion, stating that “remote testing restrictions apply to all test-takers and don’t discriminate against people with disabilities.” The plaintiffs even proposed solutions that would accommodate them during a remote exam such as couriers and remote proctoring. Judge Beeler ruled that these proposals “would impose an ‘undue burden’ on the state bar.”

In response to the lawsuit, the State Bar of California outlined which test-takers are excluded from taking the remote bar exam and offered those who fall into those categories the option to take the exam in person at a testing center with requested accommodations. Still, many graduates have expressed their concern with taking an in person exam due to the increased possibility of contracting COVID-19 because of disabilities that weaken their immune systems. In the end, students with disabilities are forced to choose between taking the bar remotely without necessary accommodations and taking it in person and risking exposure to COVID-19. This ultimatum left many disabled potential test-takers frustrated with the general lack of concern for their wellbeing and success. “The problem isn’t people’s medical conditions,” Beth Karp, a 2020 graduate and the director of accommodations at the National Disabled Law Students Association, stated, “the problem is that the test wasn’t designed for their body.”