Doe v. Supreme Court of Kentucky

Jane Doe (plaintiff) obtained her Florida law license in 2006 and subsequently worked in both public and private practice. When Doe was diagnosed with bipolar I disorder in 2014, she entered a monitoring program run by the Florida Lawyer’s Assistance Program. She complied with the program’s requirements and continued to practice law in good standing. In 2015, Doe applied for a Kentucky law license. Admission to the Kentucky bar was governed by the Kentucky Supreme Court, which delegated the job to the Character and Fitness Committee (committee) and the Board of Bar Examiners (board) (defendants). The committee prohibited practice by persons deemed immoral or unfit, and the board prohibited practice by persons who had not passed the state bar exam. The application process required Doe to disclose her disorder and execute releases granting complete access to her medical records, including treatment notes. Doe’s doctors at all times attested that she could continue to practice law without any concerns. However, shortly before Doe took the 2016 bar exam, the committee required that Doe execute a consent agreement for conditional bar admission. The agreement required Doe to sign a Kentucky contract, which she was orally told would mirror her monitoring agreement with the Florida Lawyer’s Assistance Program. Doe signed the consent agreement, passed the bar, and paid bar dues. On the day of the swearing-in ceremony, the director of the Kentucky Lawyer Assistance Program met Doe on the steps of the state capitol and presented her with a boilerplate monitoring contract that included unnecessary requirements like random drug testing, abstinence from alcohol, and notice if Doe planned to leave town for more than a week. Doe refused to sign, claiming that the contract violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by treating her like a criminal. Negotiations ensued for two years, during which Doe had to twice appear at formal hearings for interrogation about her disorder. Finally, in 2018, Doe was unconditionally admitted to the Kentucky bar. Doe sued the Kentucky Supreme Court, the committee, the board, and other bar-affiliated entities, alleging that the mental-health inquiry during the admission process violated the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Doe sought damages plus injunctive relief requiring the removal of show-cause orders and her medical records from her bar file.