After almost X'ing my browser, I logged in to post. I was thinking about the nuances about this issue, and was curious to hear people's thoughts.
as someone posted on the last page, I understand it's against the law to not hire someone based on a disability.. but what if that disability is to the extent that it impairs you from doing the work? Wouldn't it be unethical then for the person with the disability to work there? Couldn't this person become a liability for the employer?
Example scenario: let's say this Nathan F. is hired by law firm and he is representing a client, who has requested his services in good faith.. but due to OCD/Anxiety/Depression/any other Debilitating mental disabilities (I skimmed the pdf), Nathan has a difficult time representing his client. The client has a hearing at the end of the week, but he doesn't have enough time to read documents and come up with a good defense. Does the judge grant Nathan extra time every time on the basis of his disability? Is the jury instructed to be understanding about legal counsel's extra needs? What if opposing counsel is grilling a witness, but Nathan's OCD/Anxiety/Depression keep him from doing proper redirect/object, etc, basically doing a bad job of representing his client. Couldn't the client then sue Nathan/his law firm for being inadequate counsel?
Or let's say he is impaired from reviewing documents because of the recurring anxious thoughts he has. And he makes multiple mistakes that costs the firm. So they have to clean up his mess. Or, they pan off doc review to other associates, resulting in other associates taking on more work they'd prefer not to do. Or lets say, the firm WANTS to give him more accomodations, but there are deadlines, court hearings, meeting deadlines, contract dates, and an urgent need to get things done in a high pressure environment, so the firm CANT give him the extra accommodation/fires him, does he have a basis to sue the firm, even if he's the one that couldn't produce the necessary work?
I just wouldn't want a guy like that to represent me. I sympathize. But still. I'd want someone at their best. If your disability is to THAT extent, where you can't perform the reasoning abilities required by the profession (within a reasonable time), it almost seems unethical to not disclose the extent of your disability (and then if you DO, who would want you to represent them)? I know this is against the law, to discriminate based on disability, but I don't know, in a job that requires specialization/highly skilled workers, it seems less... black and white.
I was also thinking about the doctor that performed surgery on me. If he had a mild disability (that was being treated), it wouldn't concern me . But if he had a disability, that was being treated, but still impacted/impaired his abilities to the extent he neeeds 2x more time, I would not have felt comfortable going unconscious and letting him operate on him. What if something happened during the surgery, and he needed 2x more time to react, and it was a life-threatening matter? or what if his anxious thoughts got so intrusive, that he made a mistake? He would for sure be a liability
OK, sorry, I rambled a lot. It's 2 am right now where I am and I've been travelling/not getting enough sleep for the last week but overall I'm curious about peoples thoughts