Defendant's Attorney: Caroline Mew and Miranda Nhu Devereux

Description: Sherman, Texas civil rights disability lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on an Americans With Disability Act violation theory.


Plaintiff Pierson Valles (“Valles”) filed this lawsuit on July 7, 2022, against Defendant ACT, Inc. (“ACT”). Valles alleges that ACT violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”) when it denied him disability accommodations for the upcoming July 16, 2022 ACT test (the “July ACT Test”).

ACT is a not-for-profit educational organization headquartered in Iowa City, Iowa. ACT develops and administers a number of standardized tests, including the ACT Test. The ACT Test is a standardized examination used for college admissions in the United States. The ACT Test is offered seven times annually at multiple testing locations in each state, including locations within the Eastern District of Texas. Valles is an eighteen-year-old, rising senior high school student residing within this District who is currently registered to take the July ACT Test.

Valles asserts he has been diagnosed with the following conditions:

Mild Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Mathematics[;] Moderate Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Written Expression[;] Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder[;] Auditory Processing and Working Memory Deficits[;] Visual Processing Deficits[;] and Fine Motor/Handwriting Deficits

(Dkt. #1 ¶ 2). On March 30, 2022, Valles requested ACT provide him with certain disability accommodations in light of the diagnoses indicated above. Specifically, Valles requested “preferential seating and an increase in the testing time allotted by a factor of fifty percent (time and one half)” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 10). On April 5, 2022, ACT denied Valles' request (see Dkt. #2, Exhibit 5). After receiving the denial, Valles submitted a request for reconsideration on April 28, 2022. On May 9, 2022, ACT again denied Valles' request (see Dkt. #2, Exhibit 8). This process repeated once more, with ACT issuing a third denial of Valles' request for accommodations on June 24, 2022 (see Dkt. #2, Exhibit 11).

On July 7, 2022, Valles filed the present motion (Dkt. #2). Valles requests the Court issue a temporary restraining order enjoining ACT “from wrongfully continuing to deny him the reasonable accommodations he seeks” (Dkt. #2 at p. 23). On July 13, 2022, ACT filed its response (Dkt. #7). On July 15, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Valles' motion during which both parties presented arguments on their respective positions.

Outcome: "In sum, the Court finds a temporary restraining order is not warranted in this case because Valles has not satisfied the appropriate standard. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: