LSAC sued for refusing 2x time to guy w/ OCD, depression... Forum

[Brassica7]

It doesnt matter if they get all the time in the world and score a 180*... that asterisk next to their score will render it fairly worthless anyway. In addition, in the legal profession you don't get to bill 2x the hours because you have "learning disabilities" and require more time to read. Law school exams will eat this person alive.

I have heard about a student (not at my law school) who gets double time on exams because of learning disabilities. Apparently she is doing quite well. I wonder what will happen when she gets a job.

[rwhyAn]

Out of genuine curiosity, how does something like getting double time help you in the long-run? A law firm is (probably?) not going to hire someone who can literally only do half the work of someone else in the same amount of time. It just isn't good business and is unprofitable.

Not hiring someone on that basis would violate the ADA since they have a documented disability.

I'm pretty sure that your assumption is incorrect. Forrest Gump had a bachelor's from Alabama, and I'm sure they wouldn't hire him as a professor. Also, there are many professions where having a disability would bar you from employment. Becoming a police officer is the first thing that comes to mind. If you can't pass the physical standards, you're out, disability or not.

[Mr. Pancakes]

It doesnt matter if they get all the time in the world and score a 180*... that asterisk next to their score will render it fairly worthless anyway. In addition, in the legal profession you don't get to bill 2x the hours because you have "learning disabilities" and require more time to read. Law school exams will eat this person alive.

I have heard about a student (not at my law school) who gets double time on exams because of learning disabilities. Apparently she is doing quite well. I wonder what will happen when she gets a job.

being shitty at the lsat doesn't translate into being a shitty lawyer.

[Micdiddy]

Out of genuine curiosity, how does something like getting double time help you in the long-run? A law firm is (probably?) not going to hire someone who can literally only do half the work of someone else in the same amount of time. It just isn't good business and is unprofitable.

Not hiring someone on that basis would violate the ADA since they have a documented disability.

Hence my previous reply. The man is just now getting his lawsuit feet wet, yay for the LSAC for being a test run and preparing him for future successes.

However, though this is technically the law, I'm sure anyplace worth it's salt can find another reason to not hire him and be legally cleared from wrongdoing.

P & T's Bullshit on the ADA anyone?? Not that it's terribly relevant here, just giving a shoutout to a great show.

[bruss]

Totally dumb. He got extra time. Now I can see if he didnt get his extra time but he did.

[lawyerwannabe]

Out of genuine curiosity, how does something like getting double time help you in the long-run? A law firm is (probably?) not going to hire someone who can literally only do half the work of someone else in the same amount of time. It just isn't good business and is unprofitable.

Not hiring someone on that basis would violate the ADA since they have a documented disability.

You are aware that places cannot hire someone for one reason but very reasonably give a different reason that would not be illegal? No law firm would be "forced" to hire a SA if the person would be unprofitable regardless of their class rank or school. The law firm would simply contend "the person wasn't a good personality fit" or something like that. That is reasonable especially considering people out/under perform their law school GPA sometimes on the basis of interview ability and personality.

[sunynp]

Out of genuine curiosity, how does something like getting double time help you in the long-run? A law firm is (probably?) not going to hire someone who can literally only do half the work of someone else in the same amount of time. It just isn't good business and is unprofitable.

Not hiring someone on that basis would violate the ADA since they have a documented disability.

I'm pretty sure that your assumption is incorrect. Forrest Gump had a bachelor's from Alabama, and I'm sure they wouldn't hire him as a professor. Also, there are many professions where having a disability would bar you from employment. Becoming a police officer is the first thing that comes to mind. If you can't pass the physical standards, you're out, disability or not.

I think that the person doesn't have to disclose to the firm that they have a disability and the firm isn't allowed to ask. Only if a person wants/ needs workplace accommodations do they need to disclose - like a blind person needing special equipment. I don't think a firm can refuse to hire someone or fire someone who has a disability. The difference is that physical strength can be documented for jobs that need physical strength, but I don't think anyone can make a determination as to how fast someone can draft a loan agreement.

Who knows maybe this person could make a living being an advocate for the disabled and won't need to work in a pressure cooker environment?

[zozin]

Are they going to give him 2x the time in biglawl as well?

[sunynp]

Are they going to give him 2x the time in biglawl as well?

He doesn't have to go into biglaw. But I do know that there are people in biglaw that have disabilities, including MS, blindness, etc. You think a blind guy can work as fast as anyone else? Or a person with MS?

I know one of the past presidents of the ABCNY was in a wheel chair and he is a litigator at Cleery, even though a lot of people think a litigator can't do the work in court from sitting in a wheelchair. His name is Evan Davis.

[09042014]

Are they going to give him 2x the time in biglawl as well?

If they could get away billing it, yes they would.

[The Brainalist]

The phrase you are all looking for is reasonable accomodation.

[katesearches]

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

[Clearly]

Whatever, give the guy the time, it's easier to let the free market sort it out then the Americans with Disabilities Act...

Instead, we should sue the the LSAC for Snakes and Lizards.