[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-160429-en":3,"doc-seo-160429-105":31,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":92},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":21,"is_downloadable":21,"audit_status":21,"page_count":22,"language":23,"language_code":24,"site_id":25,"html_lang":24,"table_of_contents":26,"faqs":27,"seo_title":28,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":29,"read_time":30},160429,2336474459895,"Gloria","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/22000baeef7a5ed0655?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1786071322749376916",8,"Research & Report","LSAC - Consent Decree - 2014","Proposed consent decree in the Northern District of California case CV 12-1830-EMC between the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Law School Admission Council, with the United States as a plaintiff-intervenor. The decree sets injunctive obligations governing testing accommodations, including limits on documentation requests, diversification of expert consultants, best-practice review procedures under 28 C.F.R. § 36.309, and tracking of accommodation data. It also provides a permanent injunction related to score annotations, a civil penalty, and monetary relief to affected individuals.","Case3:12-cv-01830-EMC Document203 Filed05/29/14 Page1 of 61  \n1  \n2  \n3  \n4  \n5  \n6  \n7  \n8  \n9  \n10  \n11  \n12  \n13  \n14  \n15  \n16  \n17  \n18  \n19  \n20  \n21  \n22  \n23  \n24  \n25  \n26  \n27  \n28  \nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  \nSAN FRANCISCO DIVISION  \nTHE DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT )  \nAND HOUSING, )  \nPlaintiff, ) Case No. CV 12-1830-EMC  \nv. )  \nLAW SCHOOL ADMISSION COUNCIL, INC., )  \n Defendant.  )  \nTHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )  \nPlaintiff-Intervenor, ) ~~[PROPOSED]~~ CONSENT DECREE  \nv. )  \nLAW SCHOOL ADMISSION COUNCIL, INC., )  \n Defendant.  )  \nANDREW QUAN, NICHOLAS JONES, and )  \nELIZABETH HENNESSEY-SEVERSON, )  \nPlaintiff-Intervenors, )  \nv. )  \nLAW SCHOOL ADMISSION COUNCIL, INC., )  \n Defendant.  )  \nCASE NO. CV 12-1830-EMC [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE  \nCase3:12-cv-01830-EMC Document203 Filed05/29/14 Page2 of 61  \n1  \n2  \n3  \n4  \n5  \n6  \n7  \n8  \n9  \n10  \n11  \n12  \n13  \n14  \n15  \n16  \n17  \n18  \n19  \n20  \n21  \n22  \n23  \n24  \n25  \n26  \n27  \n28  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nINTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1  \nPARTIES ...............................................................................................................................................2  \n1. Plaintiffs ......................................................................................................................................2  \n2. Defendant ....................................................................................................................................2  \n3. LSAC ..........................................................................................................................................2  \nINJUNCTIVE RELIEF..........................................................................................................................3  \n4. General Obligations ....................................................................................................................3  \n5. LSAC Shall Ensure That Documentation Requests Are Reasonable And Limited To The Need For The Testing Accommodation Requested.............................................................3  \n6. LSAC Shall Diversify The Expert Consultants It Uses To Review Requests For  \nTesting Accommodations ...........................................................................................................8  \n7. LSAC Shall Implement Best Practices As Established By A Panel Of Experts To Be Agreed Upon By The Parties To Comply With 28 C.F.R. § 36.309 ..........................................9  \na. Panel ...................................................................................................................................9  \nb. Duties ............................................................................................................................... 10  \nc. Issues To Be Addressed By Panel....................................................................................10  \ni. Diversification ...................................................................................................... 10  \nii. Documentation ..................................................................................................... 10  \niii. Review of Testing Accommodation Requests .....................................................11  \niv. Other ..................................................................................................................... 12  \nd. Process ............................................................................................................................. 12  \ne. Communications .............................................................................................................. 15  \nf. Access ............................................................................................................................... 16  \ni  \nCASE NO","cbCaimafwIEsjSZ1","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimafwIEsjSZ1","pdf",1511633,2,1,61,"English","en",105,"# Introduction\n# Parties\n## Plaintiffs\n## Defendant\n## LSAC\n# Injunctive Relief\n## General Obligations\n## Documentation Requests\n## Diversify Expert Consultants\n## Best Practices Under 28 C.F.R. § 36.309\n## Tracking and/or Maintenance of Testing Accommodation Data\n# Permanent Injunction on Score Annotations\n## Permanently Discontinue Score Annotating\n# Civil Penalty\n## Civil Penalty ($55,000)\n# Monetary Relief\n## Payments To Individuals ($7,675,000.00)","[{\"question\":\"Which case and court is this consent decree filed in?\",\"answer\":\"It is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, as Case No. CV 12-1830-EMC.\"},{\"question\":\"What injunctive relief requirements does the decree impose on LSAC regarding testing accommodations?\",\"answer\":\"LSAC must ensure documentation requests are reasonable and limited to the need for the requested accommodation, diversify expert consultants reviewing requests, implement agreed best-practice procedures under 28 C.F.R. § 36.309, and maintain or track testing accommodation data.\"},{\"question\":\"What remedies are included beyond injunctive relief?\",\"answer\":\"The decree includes a permanent injunction relating to score annotations, a civil penalty of $55,000, and monetary relief totaling $7,675,000 for eligible individuals, including payments and a compensation fund.\"}]","LSAC - Consent Decree - 2014 | PDF",1788063322,154,{"code":4,"msg":32,"data":33},"ok",{"site_id":25,"language":24,"slug":34,"title":13,"keywords":35,"description":14,"schema_data":36,"social_meta":87,"head_meta":89,"extra_data":91,"updated_unix":29},"lsac-consent-decree-2014","",{"@graph":37,"@context":86},[38,54,69],{"@type":39,"itemListElement":40},"BreadcrumbList",[41,45,48,51],{"item":42,"name":43,"@type":44,"position":21},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":46,"name":47,"@type":44,"position":20},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",{"item":49,"name":12,"@type":44,"position":50},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":52,"name":13,"@type":44,"position":53},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/lsac-consent-decree-2014/160429/",4,{"url":52,"name":13,"@type":55,"author":56,"headline":13,"publisher":58,"fileFormat":61,"inLanguage":24,"description":14,"dateModified":62,"datePublished":63,"encodingFormat":61,"isAccessibleForFree":64,"interactionStatistic":65},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":57},"Person",{"url":42,"name":59,"@type":60},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-05","2026-08-30",true,{"@type":66,"interactionType":67,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":68},"ViewAction",{"@type":70,"mainEntity":71},"FAQPage",[72,78,82],{"name":73,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":75},"Which case and court is this consent decree filed in?","Question",{"text":76,"@type":77},"It is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, as Case No. CV 12-1830-EMC.","Answer",{"name":79,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":80},"What injunctive relief requirements does the decree impose on LSAC regarding testing accommodations?",{"text":81,"@type":77},"LSAC must ensure documentation requests are reasonable and limited to the need for the requested accommodation, diversify expert consultants reviewing requests, implement agreed best-practice procedures under 28 C.F.R. § 36.309, and maintain or track testing accommodation data.",{"name":83,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":84},"What remedies are included beyond injunctive relief?",{"text":85,"@type":77},"The decree includes a permanent injunction relating to score annotations, a civil penalty of $55,000, and monetary relief totaling $7,675,000 for eligible individuals, including payments and a compensation fund.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":52,"og:type":88,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":59,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":90,"canonical":52},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":25},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":93},[94,98,102,106,111,116,121,124,129,132,136],{"id":21,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":47,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":47,"category_name":99,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":101},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":53,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":47,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":47,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":47,"category_name":113,"show_sort_weight":114,"slug":115},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":47,"category_name":118,"show_sort_weight":119,"slug":120},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":47,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":122,"slug":123},30,"research-report",{"id":125,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":47,"category_name":126,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":128},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":47,"category_name":130,"show_sort_weight":127,"slug":131},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":133,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":47,"category_name":134,"show_sort_weight":133,"slug":135},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":137,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":47,"category_name":138,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":139},19,"General","general"]