This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Unruh Civil Rights Act

Halie Bloom, an individual; Devon Linkon, an individual; Emma L., an individual; K.B. an individual, as legal parent of John Doe, a minor; Steven and Molly M., individuals, as legal parents of Sam M., a minor; Michelle G.an individual, as a legal parent of Alex G., a minor; Andrew L., an individual, as legal parent of Caroline L., a minor v. ACT Inc., and Does 1-100

Published: Nov. 20, 2020 | Result Date: Oct. 7, 2020 | Filing Date: Aug. 6, 2018 |

Case number: 2:18-cv-06749-GW-KS Settlement –  $16,000,000

Judge

George H. Wu

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jesse M. Creed
(Panish, Shea & Boyle LLP)

Rahul Ravipudi
(Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP)

Marci Lerner Miller
(Potomac Law Group)

Jennifer D. Bennett
(Gupta Wessler)


Defendant

G. David Rubin
(Litchfield Cavo LLP)

Hayk Ghalumyan
(Litchfield Cavo LLP)

Ruzan Stepanyan
(Hamrick & Evans, LLP)

Alisha C. Burgin
(Perkins Coie LLP)

Albert M. Bower
(SmithAmundsen LLC)

Eric L. Samore
(SmithAmundsen LLC)

Kathryn V. Long
(SmithAmundsen LLC)

Ronald D. Balfour
(SmithAmundsen LLC)

Robert A. Burgoyne
(Perkins Coie LLP)


Facts

A group of students with disabilities filed a class action lawsuit against ACT, Inc., the administrator of the ACT exam.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act through a number of discriminatory processes, including gathering and selling information about their disabilities to colleges and universities. Tests taken by those who received special
accommodations were flagged per the policies. Furthermore, defendant placed additional hurdles in the way of applicants with disabilities looking to participate in the Educational Opportunity Service to help colleges spot them for
recruiting purposes. Lastly, plaintiffs alleged that defendants allowed institutions participating in the EOS to exclude
students with disabilities from the system.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the contentions and agreed to settle with plaintiffs given the uncertainties of litigation.

Result

The court granted preliminary approval of a $16 million settlement to be distributed among the class members. Pursuant to a consent decree, ACT also agreed not to resume certain practices alleged in the complaint.


#136071

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390