The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has concluded that the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners (TBLE) and the Tennessee Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by imposing unlawful and discriminatory conditions on aspiring lawyers with histories of substance-use or mental health disorders. These findings, announced on December 17, stem from a federal investigation into complaints filed by two bar applicants, identified as “D.S.” and “C.B.”
Investigative Findings: Discrimination and Burdensome Requirements
The DOJ’s investigation revealed that the TBLE and TLAP required applicants with past diagnoses or treatments for substance-use or mental health conditions to comply with “burdensome, intrusive, and unnecessary” requirements to obtain a law license. Such actions, the DOJ determined, violated Title II of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination in public programs and services.
The complaints that prompted the investigation highlighted significant economic and professional harm inflicted on the applicants. Both D.S. and C.B. faced job losses, substantial financial costs, and extended delays in securing their law licenses due to these discriminatory practices.
Case Study: Derek Scott’s Battle for a Law License
One complainant, Derek Scott, was required to disclose prior charges related to his untreated opioid addiction when he applied for a law license. Despite receiving effective treatment with buprenorphine—an FDA-approved medication—Scott was subjected to a costly, multi-day assessment at a recovery facility. The evaluation, which cost $2,000, found no evidence of drug use beyond his prescribed medication or cognitive impairments. Despite this, the facility recommended a six-month inpatient program, priced at $30,000.
Scott’s treating physician strongly disagreed with the need for additional treatment, emphasizing that Scott’s medication was successfully managing his condition. However, Scott was told that failing to comply with these recommendations would prevent him from obtaining his law license. This ultimatum forced Scott to choose between his effective medical treatment and his career aspirations.
After a second evaluation confirmed his fitness to practice law, Scott eventually received his license in 2023, following intervention by the DOJ. However, the delay caused Scott to lose his position as a law clerk and endure prolonged financial and emotional strain.
Case Study: C.B.’s Ordeal with Outdated Stereotypes
Another applicant, C.B., had a history of substance-use issues but successfully completed an inpatient rehabilitation program in 2010. Despite being deemed mentally fit by a TBLE interviewer, C.B. was referred to TLAP for additional evaluation. The subsequent $6,000 assessment concluded he was fit to practice law but recommended abstinence-based outpatient therapy and unrelated health measures such as quitting smoking and addressing cholesterol levels.
C.B. complied with the requirements, attending a seven-week outpatient program and signing a five-year monitoring contract that included random drug tests. The restrictions disrupted his life, forcing him to relocate and incur significant costs. Like Scott, C.B. lost employment opportunities as a result of these imposed conditions.
Broader Implications and Expert Commentary
The DOJ’s findings underscore the broader issue of licensing discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Civil rights attorney David Sinkman, who specializes in cases involving substance-use bias, remarked on the significance of the DOJ’s conclusions.
“This is a powerful finding by the Department of Justice that applies beyond admission to practice law in Tennessee, since there are similar licensing restrictions in other states and for other professions,” Sinkman said.
The DOJ’s report emphasized that the restrictions imposed on Scott and C.B. were based on stereotypes and unfounded assumptions rather than their actual conduct or professional capabilities. Such practices perpetuate stigma and undermine equal access to professional opportunities.
Looking Ahead: A Step Toward Equity
Both Scott and C.B. have expressed relief and validation following the DOJ’s findings. Scott, now a practicing attorney specializing in criminal defense, continues to take his prescribed medication and advocate for fair treatment of individuals with disabilities.
This investigation and its outcomes highlight the need for reform in professional licensing processes, ensuring that individuals are judged on their qualifications and performance rather than outdated biases or misconceptions about their medical histories.