Disclosing disability to employers... Forum

[Manali]

I'm a law student with a disability and I am wondering whether I should disclose it to supervisors at work. Has any one done this in a legal setting to get accommodations or just be open and honest? Is it still risky? Has it backfired for anyone?

[Anonymous User]

You know, there is a law about this. I would start with google

[Manali]

You know, there is a law about this. I would start with google

Nice anon abuse. I realize that. But the law on the books and how the law works in real life is different. I'm asking about anecdotes of people's personal experiences.

[jimmythecatdied6]

Sorry - I inadvertently posted anon. Again, I would use google. Good luck.

[grand inquisitor]

if you are just informing to inform, i would shy away from doing so. if you are informing because there is a possibility you will seek an accommodation in the future, then do so knowing you may face repurcussions.

[zot1]

I would only bring it up if it affects your performance somehow. If it doesn't affect anything, I wouldn't.

If you need accommodation, let them know as soon as you're hired.

If they don't want to accommodate or retaliate somehow, go talk to someone in EEO.

[Anonymous User]

What is the disability? In most instances, I'd avoid disclosing this. Disabilities today are like racial differences were yesterday: people are either indifferent to them or will think less of you because of them. The only benefit of disclosure would be to get an accommodation. You're also opening yourself up to being stereotyped, which can result in people not having an issue with your disability per se, but having an issue with a perceived characteristic associated with it regardless of whether or not the stereotype has any basis in reality. This can result in good people feeling justified in discriminating against you.

Something to consider is that law and other client focused professions are less prone to overlooking a disability, because most people perceive themselves as being more open minded than the average person even if they are not. It's likely that you'll confront many people who won't have a personal issue with your disability, but will assume that others will and ding you because they assume society is close minded. Lastly, discrimination against those with disabilities has been found to be more inborn than racism or sexism, both of which have been found to largely be learned. If you're looking for evidence of this just look at how animals treat others from their species with a disability versus how they treat others from their species who differ based on other characteristics.

There is no benefit to disclosing your disability until you know these people, and trust they won't react negatively. Justifying disclosure by stating there are laws that protect you from being discriminated against on the basis of your disability overlooks a simple fact. Society is not less racist today because there are laws that punish racism. There are laws that punish racism today, because society is less racist. The fact is that not hiring a blind person because they have difficulty seeing is perceived as being much more okay than rejecting someone on the basis of race, sexuality or religion.

[Manali]

What is the disability? In most instances, I'd avoid disclosing this. Disabilities today are like racial differences were yesterday: people are either indifferent to them or will think less of you because of them. The only benefit of disclosure would be to get an accommodation. You're also opening yourself up to being stereotyped, which can result in people not having an issue with your disability per se, but having an issue with a perceived characteristic associated with it regardless of whether or not the stereotype has any basis in reality. This can result in good people feeling justified in discriminating against you.

Something to consider is that law and other client focused professions are less prone to overlooking a disability, because most people perceive themselves as being more open minded than the average person even if they are not. It's likely that you'll confront many people who won't have a personal issue with your disability, but will assume that others will and ding you because they assume society is close minded. Lastly, discrimination against those with disabilities has been found to be more inborn than racism or sexism, both of which have been found to largely be learned. If you're looking for evidence of this just look at how animals treat others from their species with a disability versus how they treat others from their species who differ based on other characteristics.

There is no benefit to disclosing your disability until you know these people, and trust they won't react negatively. Justifying disclosure by stating there are laws that protect you from being discriminated against on the basis of your disability overlooks a simple fact. Society is not less racist today because there are laws that punish racism. There are laws that punish racism today, because society is less racist. The fact is that not hiring a blind person because they have difficulty seeing is perceived as being much more okay than rejecting someone on the basis of race, sexuality or religion.

The disability is mental illness.

[Anonymous User]

What is the disability? In most instances, I'd avoid disclosing this. Disabilities today are like racial differences were yesterday: people are either indifferent to them or will think less of you because of them. The only benefit of disclosure would be to get an accommodation. You're also opening yourself up to being stereotyped, which can result in people not having an issue with your disability per se, but having an issue with a perceived characteristic associated with it regardless of whether or not the stereotype has any basis in reality. This can result in good people feeling justified in discriminating against you.

Something to consider is that law and other client focused professions are less prone to overlooking a disability, because most people perceive themselves as being more open minded than the average person even if they are not. It's likely that you'll confront many people who won't have a personal issue with your disability, but will assume that others will and ding you because they assume society is close minded. Lastly, discrimination against those with disabilities has been found to be more inborn than racism or sexism, both of which have been found to largely be learned. If you're looking for evidence of this just look at how animals treat others from their species with a disability versus how they treat others from their species who differ based on other characteristics.

There is no benefit to disclosing your disability until you know these people, and trust they won't react negatively. Justifying disclosure by stating there are laws that protect you from being discriminated against on the basis of your disability overlooks a simple fact. Society is not less racist today because there are laws that punish racism. There are laws that punish racism today, because society is less racist. The fact is that not hiring a blind person because they have difficulty seeing is perceived as being much more okay than rejecting someone on the basis of race, sexuality or religion.

The disability is mental illness.

100% don't disclose. People with conditions like multiple sclerosis, for example. are discriminated against not because people care about their mobility but because of false associations between physical abnormalities and mental illness. Why would you want to mention this? In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act is more difficult to apply to mental illness in law, because it's easier to argue there is a legitimate business necessity to discriminate. Unless the mental illness is mild depression and the depression is a result of an external cause (loss of a loved one, divorce, etc.) rather than an organic one, you're going to be stigmatized bringing it up. I'm the person who wrote the above and consider myself understanding, but I would probably discriminate against a coworker who told me they were bipolar or had asperger's even though I'd try not to. I'd be worried about upsetting you or getting too close to you, and would be less comfortable working with you than if you didn't tell me. It's wrong and unfair to you, but is what it is.

[Manali]

What is the disability? In most instances, I'd avoid disclosing this. Disabilities today are like racial differences were yesterday: people are either indifferent to them or will think less of you because of them. The only benefit of disclosure would be to get an accommodation. You're also opening yourself up to being stereotyped, which can result in people not having an issue with your disability per se, but having an issue with a perceived characteristic associated with it regardless of whether or not the stereotype has any basis in reality. This can result in good people feeling justified in discriminating against you.

Something to consider is that law and other client focused professions are less prone to overlooking a disability, because most people perceive themselves as being more open minded than the average person even if they are not. It's likely that you'll confront many people who won't have a personal issue with your disability, but will assume that others will and ding you because they assume society is close minded. Lastly, discrimination against those with disabilities has been found to be more inborn than racism or sexism, both of which have been found to largely be learned. If you're looking for evidence of this just look at how animals treat others from their species with a disability versus how they treat others from their species who differ based on other characteristics.

There is no benefit to disclosing your disability until you know these people, and trust they won't react negatively. Justifying disclosure by stating there are laws that protect you from being discriminated against on the basis of your disability overlooks a simple fact. Society is not less racist today because there are laws that punish racism. There are laws that punish racism today, because society is less racist. The fact is that not hiring a blind person because they have difficulty seeing is perceived as being much more okay than rejecting someone on the basis of race, sexuality or religion.

The disability is mental illness.

100% don't disclose. People with conditions like multiple sclerosis, for example. are discriminated against not because people care about their mobility but because of false associations between physical abnormalities and mental illness. Why would you want to mention this? In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act is more difficult to apply to mental illness in law, because it's easier to argue there is a legitimate business necessity to discriminate. Unless the mental illness is mild depression and the depression is a result of an external cause (loss of a loved one, divorce, etc.) rather than an organic one, you're going to be stigmatized bringing it up. I'm the person who wrote the above and consider myself understanding, but I would probably discriminate against a coworker who told me they were bipolar or had asperger's even though I'd try not to. I'd be worried about upsetting you or getting too close to you, and would be less comfortable working with you than if you didn't tell me. It's wrong and unfair to you, but is what it is.

The Dean of my law school offers to personally meet students who made Dean's List for coffee in his office. After I told the Dean about my GPA, I asked the Dean about applying for federal clerkships, and it was a very unpleasant conversation. He told me upfront that I ethically have to disclose my mental health issues to prospective employers and the fact that I was forced to withdraw from my previous law school for mental health/behavioral reasons. I told him that my health is my business and that no employer has a right to access my medical history.

[Anonymous User]

What is the disability? In most instances, I'd avoid disclosing this. Disabilities today are like racial differences were yesterday: people are either indifferent to them or will think less of you because of them. The only benefit of disclosure would be to get an accommodation. You're also opening yourself up to being stereotyped, which can result in people not having an issue with your disability per se, but having an issue with a perceived characteristic associated with it regardless of whether or not the stereotype has any basis in reality. This can result in good people feeling justified in discriminating against you.

Something to consider is that law and other client focused professions are less prone to overlooking a disability, because most people perceive themselves as being more open minded than the average person even if they are not. It's likely that you'll confront many people who won't have a personal issue with your disability, but will assume that others will and ding you because they assume society is close minded. Lastly, discrimination against those with disabilities has been found to be more inborn than racism or sexism, both of which have been found to largely be learned. If you're looking for evidence of this just look at how animals treat others from their species with a disability versus how they treat others from their species who differ based on other characteristics.

There is no benefit to disclosing your disability until you know these people, and trust they won't react negatively. Justifying disclosure by stating there are laws that protect you from being discriminated against on the basis of your disability overlooks a simple fact. Society is not less racist today because there are laws that punish racism. There are laws that punish racism today, because society is less racist. The fact is that not hiring a blind person because they have difficulty seeing is perceived as being much more okay than rejecting someone on the basis of race, sexuality or religion.

The disability is mental illness.

100% don't disclose. People with conditions like multiple sclerosis, for example. are discriminated against not because people care about their mobility but because of false associations between physical abnormalities and mental illness. Why would you want to mention this? In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act is more difficult to apply to mental illness in law, because it's easier to argue there is a legitimate business necessity to discriminate. Unless the mental illness is mild depression and the depression is a result of an external cause (loss of a loved one, divorce, etc.) rather than an organic one, you're going to be stigmatized bringing it up. I'm the person who wrote the above and consider myself understanding, but I would probably discriminate against a coworker who told me they were bipolar or had asperger's even though I'd try not to. I'd be worried about upsetting you or getting too close to you, and would be less comfortable working with you than if you didn't tell me. It's wrong and unfair to you, but is what it is.

The Dean of my law school offers to personally meet students who made Dean's List for coffee in his office. After I told the Dean about my GPA, I asked the Dean about applying for federal clerkships, and it was a very unpleasant conversation. He told me upfront that I ethically have to disclose my mental health issues to prospective employers and the fact that I was forced to withdraw from my previous law school for mental health/behavioral reasons. I told him that my health is my business and that no employer has a right to access my medical history.

If you have to disclose your disability to employers because you may need to take time off for health reasons then a fit person with a fast metabolism has to disclose their dietary regimen because when their metabolism slows down they may need to take time off for health reasons. In addition, all female applicants should have to take a lie detector test to disclose how many kids they plan on having so the employer can assess the true cost of maternity leave for that individual, and you should be allowed to reject candidates based on skin color because black men are 5x likelier than white men or women to be wrongly accused of a crime they did not commit, which can make them unavailable for some time.

[smaug]

Is this thread just BlueLotus sockpuppeting advice to herself?

[lymenheimer]

Is this thread just BlueLotus sockpuppeting advice to herself?

The disability is mental illness.

[Manali]

What is the disability? In most instances, I'd avoid disclosing this. Disabilities today are like racial differences were yesterday: people are either indifferent to them or will think less of you because of them. The only benefit of disclosure would be to get an accommodation. You're also opening yourself up to being stereotyped, which can result in people not having an issue with your disability per se, but having an issue with a perceived characteristic associated with it regardless of whether or not the stereotype has any basis in reality. This can result in good people feeling justified in discriminating against you.

Something to consider is that law and other client focused professions are less prone to overlooking a disability, because most people perceive themselves as being more open minded than the average person even if they are not. It's likely that you'll confront many people who won't have a personal issue with your disability, but will assume that others will and ding you because they assume society is close minded. Lastly, discrimination against those with disabilities has been found to be more inborn than racism or sexism, both of which have been found to largely be learned. If you're looking for evidence of this just look at how animals treat others from their species with a disability versus how they treat others from their species who differ based on other characteristics.

There is no benefit to disclosing your disability until you know these people, and trust they won't react negatively. Justifying disclosure by stating there are laws that protect you from being discriminated against on the basis of your disability overlooks a simple fact. Society is not less racist today because there are laws that punish racism. There are laws that punish racism today, because society is less racist. The fact is that not hiring a blind person because they have difficulty seeing is perceived as being much more okay than rejecting someone on the basis of race, sexuality or religion.

The disability is mental illness.

100% don't disclose. People with conditions like multiple sclerosis, for example. are discriminated against not because people care about their mobility but because of false associations between physical abnormalities and mental illness. Why would you want to mention this? In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act is more difficult to apply to mental illness in law, because it's easier to argue there is a legitimate business necessity to discriminate. Unless the mental illness is mild depression and the depression is a result of an external cause (loss of a loved one, divorce, etc.) rather than an organic one, you're going to be stigmatized bringing it up. I'm the person who wrote the above and consider myself understanding, but I would probably discriminate against a coworker who told me they were bipolar or had asperger's even though I'd try not to. I'd be worried about upsetting you or getting too close to you, and would be less comfortable working with you than if you didn't tell me. It's wrong and unfair to you, but is what it is.

The Dean of my law school offers to personally meet students who made Dean's List for coffee in his office. After I told the Dean about my GPA, I asked the Dean about applying for federal clerkships, and it was a very unpleasant conversation. He told me upfront that I ethically have to disclose my mental health issues to prospective employers and the fact that I was forced to withdraw from my previous law school for mental health/behavioral reasons. I told him that my health is my business and that no employer has a right to access my medical history.

If you have to disclose your disability to employers because you may need to take time off for health reasons then a fit person with a fast metabolism has to disclose their dietary regimen because when their metabolism slows down they may need to take time off for health reasons. In addition, all female applicants should have to take a lie detector test to disclose how many kids they plan on having so the employer can assess the true cost of maternity leave for that individual, and you should be allowed to reject candidates based on skin color because black men are 5x likelier than white men or women to be wrongly accused of a crime they did not commit, which can make them unavailable for some time.

So my Dean is wrong? I just feel like my health is my business and no employer has a right to know about my medical history.

[grand inquisitor]

isn't mental illness about as broad a category as disability?

[A. Nony Mouse]

There's a difference between your medical history and your disciplinary history, and the ethics of disclosing your disciplinary history are different than the ethics of disclosing your medical history.

(FWIW, my federal clerkship employment forms didn't ask if I'd ever been required to withdraw from an educational institution, but other kinds of employment might. The bar almost certainly will. And you have to consider how you would answer a judge asking "why did you transfer from First School to Second School?" without lying. Personally I would be very uncomfortable trying to fudge that question without bringing up the disciplinary action, but that may just be me. And yes, I know you had lots of other reasons, but I'm not talking about those.)

[A. Nony Mouse]

Is this thread just BlueLotus sockpuppeting advice to herself?

No, the anon is someone else. Not that it's a bad question.

[GreenEggs]

Unless you're under some legal obligation to disclose mental illness, I could not imagine a single scenario where it would be a good idea to disclose your history of mental illness to an employer.

[Internetdan]

who discriminates against people for having ms?

[Manali]

There's a difference between your medical history and your disciplinary history, and the ethics of disclosing your disciplinary history are different than the ethics of disclosing your medical history.

(FWIW, my federal clerkship employment forms didn't ask if I'd ever been required to withdraw from an educational institution, but other kinds of employment might. The bar almost certainly will. And you have to consider how you would answer a judge asking "why did you transfer from First School to Second School?" without lying. Personally I would be very uncomfortable trying to fudge that question without bringing up the disciplinary action, but that may just be me. And yes, I know you had lots of other reasons, but I'm not talking about those.)

But my transcripts from the old school just say "W" for withdrawal. No disciplinary action is noted on my transcript.

[Anonymous User]

What is the disability? In most instances, I'd avoid disclosing this. Disabilities today are like racial differences were yesterday: people are either indifferent to them or will think less of you because of them. The only benefit of disclosure would be to get an accommodation. You're also opening yourself up to being stereotyped, which can result in people not having an issue with your disability per se, but having an issue with a perceived characteristic associated with it regardless of whether or not the stereotype has any basis in reality. This can result in good people feeling justified in discriminating against you.

Something to consider is that law and other client focused professions are less prone to overlooking a disability, because most people perceive themselves as being more open minded than the average person even if they are not. It's likely that you'll confront many people who won't have a personal issue with your disability, but will assume that others will and ding you because they assume society is close minded. Lastly, discrimination against those with disabilities has been found to be more inborn than racism or sexism, both of which have been found to largely be learned. If you're looking for evidence of this just look at how animals treat others from their species with a disability versus how they treat others from their species who differ based on other characteristics.

There is no benefit to disclosing your disability until you know these people, and trust they won't react negatively. Justifying disclosure by stating there are laws that protect you from being discriminated against on the basis of your disability overlooks a simple fact. Society is not less racist today because there are laws that punish racism. There are laws that punish racism today, because society is less racist. The fact is that not hiring a blind person because they have difficulty seeing is perceived as being much more okay than rejecting someone on the basis of race, sexuality or religion.

The disability is mental illness.

100% don't disclose. People with conditions like multiple sclerosis, for example. are discriminated against not because people care about their mobility but because of false associations between physical abnormalities and mental illness. Why would you want to mention this? In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act is more difficult to apply to mental illness in law, because it's easier to argue there is a legitimate business necessity to discriminate. Unless the mental illness is mild depression and the depression is a result of an external cause (loss of a loved one, divorce, etc.) rather than an organic one, you're going to be stigmatized bringing it up. I'm the person who wrote the above and consider myself understanding, but I would probably discriminate against a coworker who told me they were bipolar or had asperger's even though I'd try not to. I'd be worried about upsetting you or getting too close to you, and would be less comfortable working with you than if you didn't tell me. It's wrong and unfair to you, but is what it is.

The Dean of my law school offers to personally meet students who made Dean's List for coffee in his office. After I told the Dean about my GPA, I asked the Dean about applying for federal clerkships, and it was a very unpleasant conversation. He told me upfront that I ethically have to disclose my mental health issues to prospective employers and the fact that I was forced to withdraw from my previous law school for mental health/behavioral reasons. I told him that my health is my business and that no employer has a right to access my medical history.

If you have to disclose your disability to employers because you may need to take time off for health reasons then a fit person with a fast metabolism has to disclose their dietary regimen because when their metabolism slows down they may need to take time off for health reasons. In addition, all female applicants should have to take a lie detector test to disclose how many kids they plan on having so the employer can assess the true cost of maternity leave for that individual, and you should be allowed to reject candidates based on skin color because black men are 5x likelier than white men or women to be wrongly accused of a crime they did not commit, which can make them unavailable for some time.

So my Dean is wrong? I just feel like my health is my business and no employer has a right to know about my medical history.

I have difficulty believing that someone with the academic background and business savvy to become dean of a respectable law school would voluntarily open up the can of worms you describe. To the extent this conversation actually took place, it's a bit like a contracts case from 1930's Germany in which an employer sued an employee for consequential damages for not disclosing that they were a Jew.

The pickle that nonymouse mentioned is you're going to be asked about the W's, and lying is very different from not bringing up facts that are unflattering.

[Manali]

What is the disability? In most instances, I'd avoid disclosing this. Disabilities today are like racial differences were yesterday: people are either indifferent to them or will think less of you because of them. The only benefit of disclosure would be to get an accommodation. You're also opening yourself up to being stereotyped, which can result in people not having an issue with your disability per se, but having an issue with a perceived characteristic associated with it regardless of whether or not the stereotype has any basis in reality. This can result in good people feeling justified in discriminating against you.

Something to consider is that law and other client focused professions are less prone to overlooking a disability, because most people perceive themselves as being more open minded than the average person even if they are not. It's likely that you'll confront many people who won't have a personal issue with your disability, but will assume that others will and ding you because they assume society is close minded. Lastly, discrimination against those with disabilities has been found to be more inborn than racism or sexism, both of which have been found to largely be learned. If you're looking for evidence of this just look at how animals treat others from their species with a disability versus how they treat others from their species who differ based on other characteristics.

There is no benefit to disclosing your disability until you know these people, and trust they won't react negatively. Justifying disclosure by stating there are laws that protect you from being discriminated against on the basis of your disability overlooks a simple fact. Society is not less racist today because there are laws that punish racism. There are laws that punish racism today, because society is less racist. The fact is that not hiring a blind person because they have difficulty seeing is perceived as being much more okay than rejecting someone on the basis of race, sexuality or religion.

The disability is mental illness.

100% don't disclose. People with conditions like multiple sclerosis, for example. are discriminated against not because people care about their mobility but because of false associations between physical abnormalities and mental illness. Why would you want to mention this? In addition, the Americans with Disabilities Act is more difficult to apply to mental illness in law, because it's easier to argue there is a legitimate business necessity to discriminate. Unless the mental illness is mild depression and the depression is a result of an external cause (loss of a loved one, divorce, etc.) rather than an organic one, you're going to be stigmatized bringing it up. I'm the person who wrote the above and consider myself understanding, but I would probably discriminate against a coworker who told me they were bipolar or had asperger's even though I'd try not to. I'd be worried about upsetting you or getting too close to you, and would be less comfortable working with you than if you didn't tell me. It's wrong and unfair to you, but is what it is.

The Dean of my law school offers to personally meet students who made Dean's List for coffee in his office. After I told the Dean about my GPA, I asked the Dean about applying for federal clerkships, and it was a very unpleasant conversation. He told me upfront that I ethically have to disclose my mental health issues to prospective employers and the fact that I was forced to withdraw from my previous law school for mental health/behavioral reasons. I told him that my health is my business and that no employer has a right to access my medical history.

If you have to disclose your disability to employers because you may need to take time off for health reasons then a fit person with a fast metabolism has to disclose their dietary regimen because when their metabolism slows down they may need to take time off for health reasons. In addition, all female applicants should have to take a lie detector test to disclose how many kids they plan on having so the employer can assess the true cost of maternity leave for that individual, and you should be allowed to reject candidates based on skin color because black men are 5x likelier than white men or women to be wrongly accused of a crime they did not commit, which can make them unavailable for some time.

So my Dean is wrong? I just feel like my health is my business and no employer has a right to know about my medical history.

I have difficulty believing that someone with the academic background and business savvy to become dean of a respectable law school would voluntarily open up the can of worms you describe. To the extent this conversation actually took place, it's a bit like a contracts case from 1930's Germany in which an employer sued an employee for consequential damages for not disclosing that they were a Jew.

Nice anon abuse. I assure you I am not making sh*t up. My Dean told me yesterday that I have to disclose my medical history, but another Dean (who is responsible for certifying students for the bar) said I don't have to. Career Strategies also said that it's none of the employers' business.

[Anonymous User]

who discriminates against people for having ms?

People who think MS is like muscular dystrophy, or that it impacts cognitive abilities.

[Anonymous User]

There's a difference between your medical history and your disciplinary history, and the ethics of disclosing your disciplinary history are different than the ethics of disclosing your medical history.

(FWIW, my federal clerkship employment forms didn't ask if I'd ever been required to withdraw from an educational institution, but other kinds of employment might. The bar almost certainly will. And you have to consider how you would answer a judge asking "why did you transfer from First School to Second School?" without lying. Personally I would be very uncomfortable trying to fudge that question without bringing up the disciplinary action, but that may just be me. And yes, I know you had lots of other reasons, but I'm not talking about those.)

But my transcripts from the old school just say "W" for withdrawal. No disciplinary action is noted on my transcript.

When You Apply to Law School and if you were suspended from undergrad for a year your transcripts will typically not say that. But you're still required to answer the question on applications (truthfully) that you were suspended and the reasons for it.

[Manali]

There's a difference between your medical history and your disciplinary history, and the ethics of disclosing your disciplinary history are different than the ethics of disclosing your medical history.

(FWIW, my federal clerkship employment forms didn't ask if I'd ever been required to withdraw from an educational institution, but other kinds of employment might. The bar almost certainly will. And you have to consider how you would answer a judge asking "why did you transfer from First School to Second School?" without lying. Personally I would be very uncomfortable trying to fudge that question without bringing up the disciplinary action, but that may just be me. And yes, I know you had lots of other reasons, but I'm not talking about those.)

But my transcripts from the old school just say "W" for withdrawal. No disciplinary action is noted on my transcript.

When you apply to law school and if you were suspended from undergrad for a year your transcripts will typically not say that. But you're still required to answer the question on applications (truthfully) that you were suspended and the reasons for it.

I didn't receive a sanction. I was forced to withdraw because I disclosed that I was suicidal.