The Supreme Judicial Court issued a unanimous decision on Sophie's favor on April 13, 2012.
See http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7718157550246736431&q=currier+v.+national+board+of+medical+examiners&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Oral argument
The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument on December 8, 2011. For a webcast of the oral argument, see http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/archive/2011/SJC_10898.html.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Appeal Granted
On January 27, 2011, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted Sophie's petition for Direct Appellate Review, bypassing the Court of Appeals.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Adverse decision in Norfolk Superior Court
Sophie's cause suffered a setback on July 26, 2010, when Judge Connor of the Norfolk Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the NBME.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Justice Katzmann's opinion granting a preliminary injunction
This post has a link to Justice Katzmann’s opinion in Currier v. National Board of Medical Examiners (Mass. App. 2007) concerning exam accommodations for a breast-feeding mother.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Sophie Currier was nursing a four-month-old child when she was scheduled to take Step 2 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination, a requirement for receiving a license to practice medicine in Massachusetts. Sophie requested extra time to express milk. When the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) denied this request, she sought legal advice from Christine Smith Collins of Bowditch & Dewey, who agreed to take her case pro bono. When negotiations with the NBME failed, Sophie and her lawyers decided to bring a test case, feeling that an important principle was involved. After a trial judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction ordering the NBME to give extra time to express milk, Sophie appealed to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals. The case was assigned to Justice Gary S. Katzmann, who issued a 21-page opinion concluding that Sophie was entitled to a court order affording her an additional sixty minutes of break time per test day.
Justice Katzmann noted that it was “well established” that breast-feeding “improves infants’ general health, growth, and development, and significantly decreases the risk of numerous acute and chronic diseases.” He also found that a nursing mother of a four to five-month-old child should “express milk a minimum of every three hours in order to maintain milk production and avoid engorgement, blockage of milk ducts, galactoceles (milk retention cysts), mastitis (an infection of the breast caused by the blocking of the milk ducts), and breast abscesses.“
Justice Katzmann found a likelihood of success on the merits under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Amendment. He ruled that the NBME’s accommodations policy had a “disparate impact” on the petitioner as a breast-feeding woman, and that the denial of Sophie’s “reasonable request” for break time solely for the expression of breast milk “places her at a significant disadvantage in comparison to her peers.” He entered a preliminary injunction ordering that she be given 60 minutes per day of extra time to express milk, stating that without extra break time, she "must make a significant Hobbesian choice: use her break time to incompletely express breast milk and ignore her bodily functions or abnegate the decision to express breast milk, resulting in significant pain." He also noted that break time for expressing milk would not give an advantage in answering the exam questions, because breaks can be taken only after a unit of the exam is completed.
Although the NBME obeyed Justice Katzmann’s court order and gave Sophie extra break time to express milk during her exam, it has not changed its general policy. On its website, it states that Justice Katzmann’s order “applies only to Ms. Currier.” (http://www.nbme.org/about/BF-USMLE.html (visited May 19, 2010)). This statement is true in the narrow legal sense that when an individual plaintiff obtains a court order, only that plaintiff is entitled to enforce the particular order. However, it would be a mistake to believe that Sophie’s case is unique and that its principles apply only to her. The legal rules and principles followed by Justice Katzmann apply to other breast-feeding mothers. In fact, in deciding that Sophie’s case was not moot, a later court noted the “important public interest” involved in resolving the issues raised by Sophie’s complaint. See Currier v. National Board of Medical Examiners, civ. no. 07-J-434, Memorandum of Decision and Order On Defendant's Motion For Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, Dec. 31, 2008 (Sanders, J.)(refusing to dismiss the claim). Obviously, there would be no important public interest if Sophie’s case were unique and the precedent applied only to her.
Most applicants take the Step 2 test in one nine-hour day. Because Sophie was diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia when she was sixteen years old, she was allowed to take the test in two nine-hour segments, giving her two minutes for each objective question instead of one minute. This accommodation was not at issue in the case presented to Justice Katzmann, and played no role in supporting his decision that a nursing mother was entitled to extra break time to express milk.
At this writing (May 19, 2010) Sophie’s case is still in litigation, so the result is not final. We hope that this web page will be useful to readers who are interested in what has been decided so far, and who would like to read Justice Katzmann’s thoughtful opinion on the issues.
Roger and Suzanne Park
(Parents of Sophie Currier)
(If you’d like to send a comment to Sophie’s parents, please write to CurrierComments@gmail.com)
CLICK HERE FOR JUSTICE KATZMANN'S OPINION
If the above link doesn't work for you, try going to the attachment at this website.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Sophie Currier was nursing a four-month-old child when she was scheduled to take Step 2 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination, a requirement for receiving a license to practice medicine in Massachusetts. Sophie requested extra time to express milk. When the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) denied this request, she sought legal advice from Christine Smith Collins of Bowditch & Dewey, who agreed to take her case pro bono. When negotiations with the NBME failed, Sophie and her lawyers decided to bring a test case, feeling that an important principle was involved. After a trial judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction ordering the NBME to give extra time to express milk, Sophie appealed to the Massachusetts Court of Appeals. The case was assigned to Justice Gary S. Katzmann, who issued a 21-page opinion concluding that Sophie was entitled to a court order affording her an additional sixty minutes of break time per test day.
Justice Katzmann noted that it was “well established” that breast-feeding “improves infants’ general health, growth, and development, and significantly decreases the risk of numerous acute and chronic diseases.” He also found that a nursing mother of a four to five-month-old child should “express milk a minimum of every three hours in order to maintain milk production and avoid engorgement, blockage of milk ducts, galactoceles (milk retention cysts), mastitis (an infection of the breast caused by the blocking of the milk ducts), and breast abscesses.“
Justice Katzmann found a likelihood of success on the merits under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Amendment. He ruled that the NBME’s accommodations policy had a “disparate impact” on the petitioner as a breast-feeding woman, and that the denial of Sophie’s “reasonable request” for break time solely for the expression of breast milk “places her at a significant disadvantage in comparison to her peers.” He entered a preliminary injunction ordering that she be given 60 minutes per day of extra time to express milk, stating that without extra break time, she "must make a significant Hobbesian choice: use her break time to incompletely express breast milk and ignore her bodily functions or abnegate the decision to express breast milk, resulting in significant pain." He also noted that break time for expressing milk would not give an advantage in answering the exam questions, because breaks can be taken only after a unit of the exam is completed.
Although the NBME obeyed Justice Katzmann’s court order and gave Sophie extra break time to express milk during her exam, it has not changed its general policy. On its website, it states that Justice Katzmann’s order “applies only to Ms. Currier.” (http://www.nbme.org/about/BF-USMLE.html (visited May 19, 2010)). This statement is true in the narrow legal sense that when an individual plaintiff obtains a court order, only that plaintiff is entitled to enforce the particular order. However, it would be a mistake to believe that Sophie’s case is unique and that its principles apply only to her. The legal rules and principles followed by Justice Katzmann apply to other breast-feeding mothers. In fact, in deciding that Sophie’s case was not moot, a later court noted the “important public interest” involved in resolving the issues raised by Sophie’s complaint. See Currier v. National Board of Medical Examiners, civ. no. 07-J-434, Memorandum of Decision and Order On Defendant's Motion For Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, Dec. 31, 2008 (Sanders, J.)(refusing to dismiss the claim). Obviously, there would be no important public interest if Sophie’s case were unique and the precedent applied only to her.
Most applicants take the Step 2 test in one nine-hour day. Because Sophie was diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia when she was sixteen years old, she was allowed to take the test in two nine-hour segments, giving her two minutes for each objective question instead of one minute. This accommodation was not at issue in the case presented to Justice Katzmann, and played no role in supporting his decision that a nursing mother was entitled to extra break time to express milk.
At this writing (May 19, 2010) Sophie’s case is still in litigation, so the result is not final. We hope that this web page will be useful to readers who are interested in what has been decided so far, and who would like to read Justice Katzmann’s thoughtful opinion on the issues.
Roger and Suzanne Park
(Parents of Sophie Currier)
(If you’d like to send a comment to Sophie’s parents, please write to CurrierComments@gmail.com)
CLICK HERE FOR JUSTICE KATZMANN'S OPINION
If the above link doesn't work for you, try going to the attachment at this website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)