Enyart v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, Inc. (2011)

By Gia Scotti

Overview:

Stephanie Enyart (Plaintiff), a legally blind law school graduate, planned to take the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) and the Multistate Bar Exam using a computer equipped with assistive technology. Although the State Bar of California permitted her to do so, the National Conference of Bar Examiners (Defendant) did not permit her to use this accommodation. Enyart sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act seeking an injunctive relief, and the district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring Defendant to allow her to use the assistive software. The United States Court of Appeals in the Ninth District affirmed the lower court’s order.

Summary:

Stephanie Enyart was diagnosed with Stargardt’s Disease, which caused her to experience a great blind spot in the center of her visual field and led her to have extreme sensitivity problems to light. Due to this, Enyart depended on assistive technology to do everyday tasks, such as reading. Enyart planned to take both the MPRE and Bar Exam before she could become a licensed attorney, and contacted the ACT (testing company that administers the MPRE and licenses the MBE) to allow her to use the assistive software such as JAWS and ZoomText. The ACT denied her request to use this software because the MPRE would not be available in electronic format for her. Similarly, the NCBE did not permit her to use the assistive technology for the California Bar, because a portion of the bar exam (MBE) would not be available in electronic format. Plaintiff cancelled the exams and made repeated attempts to use the software when she registered again, but was denied multiple times. 

Enyart filed suit against the NCBE, ACT, and the State Bar of California alleging violations of the ADA and the Unruh Act. She sought a preliminary injunction, ordering NCBE to allow her to use the assistive technology which the district court agreed because otherwise, the test would not be “accessible” to her and she would end up taking the exam at a severe discomfort and disadvantage. Furthermore, the other alternatives that were given to her, including a human reader, audiotapes, and a closed-circuit television, were not reasonable as her condition would keep on getting progressively worse over time. 

Enyart failed both the March 2010 MPRE and the July 2009 Bar Exam, thus, she asked for another injunction for the next round of exams, which the lower court granted and Defendant then appealed. On appeal, the Defendant argued that this case was moot because she already took the earlier exams, but the court disagreed stating that the situation is capable of repetition, yet evading review. In other words, the situation is likely to reoccur but would expire before a court would reach an ultimate decision.

The court also inquired on the standard for granting a preliminary injunction and whether it applied to Enyart’s case. A plaintiff must show that (1) she is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in her favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest:

1. Success on the merits: ADA required testing organizations to provide reasonable accommodations and that licensing exams need to be accessible so that “disabled people are provided with an equal opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge or abilities to the same degree as nondisabled people taking the exam.” The other accommodations that NCBE offered were not reasonable and sufficient evidence showed that she would suffer eye fatigue, disorientation, and nausea. ZoomText and JAWS were confirmed to be the only alternatives that would allow her to fully understand and process the material. 

2. Irreparable harm: Plaintiff satisfied this element as she would suffer irreparable harm because if she was not able to take the exams without proper accommodations, she would lose the opportunity to pursue her chosen profession. A career setback is something that money would not be able to fix. 

3. Balance of equities: The district court compared the harm of Enyart not being granted the injunction versus NCBE being ordered to grant it, and the court concluded that the equities weighed in her favor. Enyart would suffer losing her career as an attorney while the potential harm to NCBE was minimal and not a heavy burden.

4. Public interest: Granting the injunction was in the public interest, because in enacting the ADA, the public has an interest in ensuring the eradication of discrimination on solely the basis of disability. Enyart being able to take the exam supported the idea that all individuals, especially those with a disability, were not being treated unfairly. 

Overall, the Ninth Circuit ultimately held that NCBE must permit Stephanie Enyart to use the assistive technologies to take the exams. 

Impact:

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Enyart v. NCBE made it clear that testing agencies must provide reasonable accommodations for a person with a disability to take an exam, and not provide alternatives that would ultimately be ineffective. Furthermore, the case emphasized that accommodations need to constantly be updated as technology is rapidly advancing and evolving. In this case, although human readers and audiotapes once served its purpose, Plaintiff’s condition was only going to worsen, which is why assistive software programs such as JAWS and ZoomText were necessary. The holding in this case causes a breakthrough in opening all kinds of doors to a variety of professions to people with many types of disability who depend on computers and assistive software to read. 

Court Documents:

Enyart v. Nat'l Conf. of Bar Examiners, Inc., 630 F.3d 1153  (9th Cir. 2011).

Citations

Westlaw Case Summary: Enyart v. Nat’l Conf. of Bar Examiners Inc., Westlaw, https://westlaw.com. Accessed September 8, 2025. 

630 F.3d 1153, 24 A.D. Cases 133, 42 NDLR P 131, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 176, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 224.