Court vacates preliminary injunction relating to ADA violation in medical school testing case

The plaintiff in this case is a medical student at SUNY Stony Brook who alleged that the Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) denied him testing accommodations in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted him a preliminary injunction against the NBME on the basis that the accommodations denial would cause him to suffer irreparable harm. The Court of Appeals dissolves the injunction.

The case is Sampson v. National Board of Medical Examiners, a summary order issued on May 1. You can get a preliminary injunction at the outset of a lawsuit if the trial court thinks you have a strong chance to win the case and you will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. Irreparable harm means the harm cannot be undone if everyone waits for the plaintiff to win the case at the conclusion of the legal proceedings, which can take more than a year. Preliminary injunctions are hard to win.

The district court summarizes the nature of plaintiff's disability:

Despite his evident aptitude, Sampson has struggled with learning since his early childhood. By the time he was four years old, he had been diagnosed with severe stuttering that required intervention therapy. As part of this intervention therapy, Sampson's speech pathologist instructed his family to slow their speech to afford him more processing time. . . . Sampson also struggled to complete timed exams within the time allotted. He was almost always the last student to complete an exam, regardless of subject area. He sometimes was allowed extra time to finish timed exams during lunch or after school, while other students finished the same exam within the allotted time in class. Even with additional time, however, he still was unable to finish the exams.

 . . . 

NBME provides accommodations to examinees who have a disability within the meaning of the ADA and need accommodations. So, in April 2017, Sampson sought accommodations from NBME for Step 1. He requested 50% additional time (time and a half) on the exam—the same accommodation that he recently received from Stony Brook for shelf exams.

After NBME denied plaintiff's accommodation request, he sued NBME under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted him an injunction, but the Court of Appeals reverses.

Despite his evident aptitude, Sampson has struggled with learning since his early childhood. By the time he was four years old, he had been diagnosed with severe stuttering that required intervention therapy. As part of this intervention therapy, Sampson's speech pathologist instructed his family to slow their speech to afford him more processing time.

Sampson v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners, No. 22CV05120JMAAYS, 2022 WL 17403785, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2022)

The Court of Appeals holds that plaintiff is not entitled to any injunction because there is no irreparable harm. Bear in mind that the test plaintiff needed the accommodation for is Step 1. The Second Circuit (Park, Wesley and Robinson) notes that "The district court reasoned that Sampson “cannot continue his medical training until he passes Step 1” and “it is likely that he will again fail Step 1 if he takes the exam without accommodation” so “he will not be able to progress to his final year of medical school unless he receives accommodations on Step 1.” Stony Brook has a seven-year limit for medical students to complete their studies. Plaintiff has a separate lawsuit against Stony Brook over this requirement. That lawsuit complicates the injunction. The Court of Appeals states,

But Sampson’s complaint against Stony Brook alleges that Stony Brook has sought to dismiss him and has repeatedly stated that Sampson will not be granted an exception to the seven-year graduation requirement.  So Sampson’s alleged inability to progress in medical school depends not only on the outcome of this  lawsuit, but also on the outcome of Sampson’s lawsuit against Stony Brook. The district court thus erred in making a determination of harm that is contingent on the outcome of Sampson’s separate legal proceeding against Stony Brook.

Since the district court did not find that plaintiff is likely to win his case against Stony Brook or win a favorable settlement if he passes Step 1, there is no showing of irreparable harm.