Eleventh Circuit Recognizes a “Fundamental Alteration” Limit on ADA § 309 Testing Accommodations

I. Introduction

In Brian James Albert v. Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists, LLC (11th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit addressed, for the first time in a published opinion, the scope of ADA § 309, the statute governing accommodations for professional and trade examinations. Brian James Albert, a test-taker with learning and anxiety disorders, sought to sit for the Association’s anti-money-laundering certification exam in an open-book format. The Association offered multiple accommodations (extra time, separate room, magnification, pronunciation assistance) but refused open-book testing, asserting it would change what the exam measures.

The central legal issue was whether § 309 required the Association to grant an accommodation that, according to the test provider, would fundamentally alter the nature of the certification exam.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Association. It held narrowly, but definitively, that ADA § 309 does not require an exam provider to offer an accommodation that would fundamentally alter the nature of its examination. Applying that rule, the court concluded the requested open-book format would fundamentally alter the exam because the exam was designed to measure a candidate’s ready working knowledge rather than the ability to locate information in materials.

III. Analysis

A. The New Rule Under ADA § 309

The opinion’s key doctrinal contribution is its interpretation of § 309’s text: because the statute requires entities to offer “such examinations” in an accessible manner, accommodations must preserve the identity of the exam as the same exam. From that textual anchor (“such”), the court derived a limiting principle: an exam provider may refuse an accommodation it can show would fundamentally change the exam.

B. Precedents Cited (and How They Shaped the Decision)

  • Albert v. Ass'n of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists, LLC, No. 21- 12333, 2022 WL 1415867 (11th Cir. May 4, 2022)
    This earlier, unpublished decision did not resolve the merits but was pivotal procedurally. It held that the district court applied the wrong statute by analyzing the case under ADA § 302 (public accommodations) instead of § 309 (examinations). The 2025 panel builds on that correction and supplies the first published Eleventh Circuit construction of § 309’s limits.
  • Mahmood v. Nat'l Bd. Of Med. Exam'rs, No. 12-1544, 2012 WL 2368462 (E.D. Pa. June 21, 2012)
    The district court borrowed Mahmood’s three-part formulation for § 309 (disabled, reasonable request, denial). The Eleventh Circuit expressly declined to comprehensively define § 309’s elements and defenses, but it accepted that the dispute here turned on “reasonableness” and used the case as a reference point for how other courts have framed § 309 claims.
  • PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001)
    Martin appears in two ways. First, the district court (somewhat oddly) cited it while discussing § 302’s accommodation framework. Second, and more importantly, the Eleventh Circuit used Martin (along with its own FHA precedent) to illustrate the general concept of a “fundamental alteration” defense, while grounding § 309’s version of that limitation in § 309’s own text. The opinion thus treats “fundamental alteration” as a familiar limiting principle across accommodation regimes, even if § 309’s source is less explicit than § 302’s.
  • Schaw v. Habitat for Human. of Citrus Cnty., Inc., 938 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2019)
    Schaw supplied the analytic analogy: even where a requested accommodation is facially reasonable, a defendant may rebut it by showing it would cause a “fundamental alteration.” The court invoked Schaw to show that accommodation law commonly recognizes a boundary where the requested change would rewrite the essential nature of the program or service.
  • Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., 967 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc)
    Gogel is cited for the standard of review on summary judgment: de novo review and viewing evidence in the nonmovant’s favor. While not substantive to ADA doctrine, it frames the court’s conclusion that no genuine dispute existed on fundamental alteration.

C. Legal Reasoning

  1. Text-first interpretation of § 309.
    The court begins with § 309’s command to offer “such examinations” accessibly or provide “alternative accessible arrangements.” It reads “such” as a constraint: accommodations must maintain the exam’s essential nature. This is the opinion’s core interpretive move and the basis for recognizing a fundamental-alteration limitation in § 309.
  2. Application to open-book testing as a change in what is being measured.
    The Association’s declaration evidence (Oxman) established that the closed-book format is part of the construct being tested: working knowledge and internal processing “without delay or reliance on external materials.” Open-book testing would shift the construct to “ability to look up information,” which the court treated as eliminating one of the exam’s aims and thus altering its fundamental nature.
  3. Summary judgment posture and undisputed evidence.
    The panel emphasized that Albert did not meaningfully dispute Oxman’s explanation. It also rejected Albert’s purported contrary evidence: (a) a psychologist’s statement that open-book testing “would benefit” him (benefit ≠ no alteration), and (b) vague references to prior university accommodations (insufficient detail and no linkage to the exam’s purpose or format).
  4. Deliberate narrowness.
    The court expressly avoided fully articulating all § 309 elements and defenses, deciding the case on the single dispositive point: even if § 309 requires accessibility, it does not compel accommodations that fundamentally change the exam.

D. Impact

The decision is likely to be influential in three main ways:

  • Doctrinal clarity for § 309 in the Eleventh Circuit. This is a first published interpretation of § 309 by the circuit and will serve as the primary citation for test providers and litigants on the outer boundary of required accommodations.
  • Provider-friendly framework where exam purpose and “construct” are central. The opinion signals that courts will examine what the test is designed to measure and treat format as potentially essential, especially where the provider substantiates that design choice with competent evidence.
  • Litigation incentives around evidence and expert framing. Plaintiffs may respond by developing evidence that: (a) the requested modification does not change the construct being measured, (b) the provider’s stated purpose can still be measured with alternative designs, or (c) narrower tools (limited reference sheets, controlled databases, etc.) preserve exam integrity. Conversely, providers are incentivized to document exam design rationale and psychometric purpose to support “fundamental alteration.”

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • ADA § 309 (Examinations and courses).
    A specialized ADA provision requiring licensing/certification exam providers to offer exams accessibly or provide accessible alternatives. It is distinct from § 302, which governs “places of public accommodation” more generally.
  • “Alternative accessible arrangements.”
    Practical changes to how an exam is administered so a person with a disability can meaningfully access it—e.g., extra time, separate room, screen magnification, reader assistance—so long as the exam remains the same exam.
  • “Fundamental alteration.”
    A change so significant that it modifies the essential nature of what is being offered or measured. Here, the court treated “closed-book” as essential to measuring working knowledge; switching to open-book would test a different skill.
  • Summary judgment.
    A case can be decided without trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the law favors the moving party. The court found the “fundamental alteration” point undisputed on this record.

V. Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s principal takeaway is straightforward and precedential: ADA § 309 requires accessibility, but not at the cost of fundamentally changing what a certification exam is designed to measure. On the record presented—particularly the unchallenged evidence that open-book testing would convert the exam from measuring internalized mastery to measuring look-up ability—the court held the requested accommodation was not required. The decision will shape § 309 disputes in the circuit by focusing future cases on whether a requested modification preserves the exam’s essential nature as “such” an examination.