ASD, Legal Capacity and Employment

Post Reply New Topic

Nothing.

It's the same thing.

Generally, they'll tell you that you have a good case and try to get you to sign a retainer.
In the cases I was involved with, retainers were $5000-$10,000 even 20 years ago.
Most of them were about $500 / hour and they earn their money really quickly.
It's advantageous for them to forgive $250 on a $5000 retainer.

Clearly your case or situation wouldn't require anything like that.
All you need is a yes / no answer based on the law in the state where you live.
It's not like you're actively suing anyone or defending yourself on a motion.
All you need is clarification about your rights to privacy when accepting a job.
I assume that would be cut and dry.

There seems to be a bit of confusion here, so I'm gonna try to clarify. I dislike invoking the image of Rain-Man, but it makes the point more conveniently.

If you ask a lawyer a purely generic hypothetical, such as "Can an unspecified person with autism meet the bar to be considered of sound mind and sufficient mental capacity?", although the answer is technically "yes", if they give that answer, and then the individual goes off to have Rain-Man sign a contract cos "a lawyer said it was ok", that lawyer can be held accountable. If the lawyer says "No, they can't meet that bar", and someone who is perfectly sound of mind and mentally capable may suffer loss of livelyhood or income, cos "a lawyer said I can't sign contracts!", that lawyer can be held accountable. That may sound silly, but I assure you, lawyers take it very seriously.

When it comes to "Can an autistic do this or that", without specifying WHO, the question is somewhat unanswerable. Cos are we talking about Anthony Hopkins, or Rain-Man? It makes a huge difference.

In the instances described by other members, where a lawyer is held on retainer, while you may be asking them hypothetical questions, you are still - presumably - asking them hypothetical questions about matters that pertain to YOU personally, and what YOU should do. OP's question was asked about "someone". Not about anyone specific. If OP were to ask about THEMSELF, THEN a lawyer is in a position to hypothesize. I said as much in my previous post.

Also, it is, in fact, not at all cut and dry. This isn't a matter of simply reading a rule-book and seeing what it says. There typically can't* be a discrete law about whether or not autistic people can enter contracts, cos that would be discriminatory, based on disability. The point of mental capacity and sound mind is that it's not a hard and fast yes / no regulation, like speeding, where you're either over or under the limit. Since autism is a wide spectrum, there are plenty of people of, and not of, mental capacity to lawfully enter into a contract. This varies on a purely individual basis. There is no line in the sand that says "you must be this capacity to be of capacity". It is highly subjective.

Mental capacity is hard to quantify like that. And even then, when they're referring to insufficient mental capacity, they generally mean more like, to the point where you have a caretaker looking after you for most of the day, and not simply "takes things a bit literally, and doesn't get sarcasm".

It's something that's usually determined after-the-fact, in order to render a contract unenforceable - such as if a shady orderly at a nursing home tried to get dementia patients to sigh away their property to them, for example. It's not meant to pre-emptively prevent the signing of contracts. It's to keep them from being enforced, if they're signed by feeble-minded people, by using trickery or manipulation or coercion - or to help people who are suicidal or depressed etc from being taken advantage of. Someone can't drug you, and get you to sign a contract, and enforce it. Stuff like that.

It really isn't just a matter of seeing what the law says.

I'm genuinely not trying to be all like NO YOU'RE ALL WRONG! - but I'm also not speaking from a layperson's perspective, either. I had to learn a lot of common and civil law, contract structure and enforcement, professional liability, and other similar matters, from a legal perspective, as part of my degree. I don't claim to be an expert, and I am not a lawyer. But I am reasonably confident that that's what OP can expect if they pursue this.

If you ask whether "an autistic" can legally sign a contract based on sound mind and capacity, the answer will likely be either "it depends", or "yes if this, and no if that" - or a combo of the two. Neither one of those is a definitive "yes" or "no".

If OP asks whether or not THEY PERSONALLY can legally enter a contract, odds are the answer will be akin to "you seem to be", cos generally speaking, if you have the mental capacity to wonder if you should contact a lawyer, and to actually do the work to contact a lawyer, set up an appointment, and go ask said lawyer the above questions, you probably meet the bar of sufficient mental capacity.

If OP is wondering if "having autism" or "not being of sufficient mental capacity" will get them in trouble if they sign a contract, and someone finds out, generally no. If you are found to not be of sufficient mental capacity, they decided you didn't know what you were doing, and therefore can't be held responsible for your actions. But again, the bar for "mental capacity" is closer to "mentally feeble and needs a live-in life assistant" and not "finds nuance confusing and can't read between the lines".

If OP is wondering if they can get in trouble if they sign a contract and someone finds out they have autism, and tries to get them in trouble because of the legal capacity requirement, that's most likely a "no". Partly to the reasons related above. If they claim that autism in and of itself makes you unfit, that's discriminatory*, and they can get in trouble*. They would have to prove you legitimately lacked mental capacity in the eye of the law, and if you did, the most they could likely do is break contract, likely not actually get you in trouble.

If OP is wondering whether simply "having autism" in and of itself precludes one from meeting the bar of mental capacity and sound mind, the answer is, generally no. But this would generally apply to the milder side of the spectrum. Equally so, individuals with autism can just as easily fall onto the other side of the severity scale, and be far too mentally disabled to have a contract enforced against them. Because again, the bar for mental capacity is much closer to "doesn't understand basic life concepts like money, property, laws, and can't live independently" - not "someone who misinterprets things and doesn't get hints".

Of course, having said all that, if OP signed a contract in good faith, received some benefit from it, and then fraudulently claimed insufficient mental capacity as a means of breaking contract without having to fulfil their end of the contract, that would be trouble. (example)

And if, at this point, you think I'm just being silly, this really is among the kinda stuff lawyers and business contracts actually have to contend with, internally, all the time...

*Based on how laws in the USA are meant to function.

Here’s my real problem with this thread. This is the OP’s original question:

My question is due to the nature of our disorder would even the most highest functioning of us be able to have the sound mind to legally sign an employment contract since all contracts require a person to be of sound mind for them to legally sign?

Now he knows the answer to that question is Yes [edit by author]. How does he know? Assuming Elon Musk is autistic, the most highest functioning of us all, are all the contracts he signed unenforceable because he lacks the capacity to contract? Anyone here who has signed a lease, bought a car, bought a house, married — should those contracts be rendered unenforceable because we have ASD diagnoses?

OP asks a question that infantilizes autistic people. We get enough of that from the rest of the world. Surely some autistic people do not have the capacity to contract. But the most highest functioning of us?

EDIT: under New York law, if I were called for jury duty, if I wanted to show my diagnosis of autism, I would be excused. I would never do that. But that is what happens when the law treats all autism as level 3.

For Elon Musk, does he have a formal diagnosis by a licensed professional?

As for infantilizing, some of you may not like what I have to say if it was a choice of being infantilized vs being forced to fit into society especially the workplace, masking, pretending to be something I'm not and walking on eggshells so I don't f**k up some BS social standard I'll take being infantilized anytime.

Ideally, I would choose neither.

If it was my actual actual choice I would choose to have more services be provided and can work in a place I can be myself and don't have to mask so since this is not an option I'll take being infantilized and a Chocolate milk please.

If I can't have the benefits of being an adult because I can't get or keep jobs or I can't even get an interview let alone pass one of them or I have difficulty keeping track of things required to pay taxes then why would I want the responsibilities of an adult?

The Neurodiversity movement tries to fight for all of these rights and and acceptance but what good are rights and acceptance to me if I can't hack the responsibilities that are attached to it.

To me, it seems like the idea and definition of sound mind is extremely narrow. But, a person may understand money, know his own name and be cognizant of the time and date and other simple things but if that same person still has to claim SSDI for a mental disability because he can't get or keep jobs or even get an interview let alone pass one then you're telling me this person is of sound mind? Even if he is capable of driving.

The legal system would say yes but I would say the legal definition is simply to narrow then.

As for jury duty, if I knew that my aspergers could've gotten me out of jury duty I would've used it and volunteered the information. The attitude of my country (USA) is that I'm owed nothing so why would I owe my nation back?

I am a lawyer but i live in a middle eastern country where such things are not taken into account at all.

I mean i did not even sign a contract to get my job lol. But, forgetting about all that, in my country high functioning autism without mental disability does not make someone "not sound of mind" they may have a weakness of mind, depending on the severity of autism or comorbids like bipolar etc. Though, in that case a legal guardian is assigned to them or they are put in a care home or such.

Unless your autism is really apparent, you just pass as a normal person here

Yeah, that's what I figured your actual motive was. Would have been easier if you'd just said it in the first place.

Yes, a person can be mentally disabled enough to not be able to keep a job, and still be considered to be of sound mind.

The purpose of the "sound mind" stipulation regarding contracts isn't to provide support to disabled people. It's to provide protection to individuals who are so mentally feeble, they don't even understand what a "contract" is. It is not a support mechanism, like SSDI. In this context, it is a safety mechanism, who's purpose is to render contracts unenforceable in certain situations. Providing support is, as you've noted, SSDI's purpose. Given that it provides an entirely different function, it stands to reason that they would have different requisites. It's a shield, not a net.

To that end, even if you got your way, and autism did give you the "not of sound mind" stamp, all that does is protect you from (unreasonable) contracts being enforced. You wouldn't actually get any benefits, just from that. You would still have to apply for any assistance programs you were hoping to utilize. Being not of sound mind does not automatically make anything happen.

It's not gonna give you what you seem to think it would.

I get what you're saying.

IMHO, I think us ASDs are sort of in an uncanny valley type situation(I'm using this as figurative language). We're considered functional to go to college and make attempts to get employed yet employers don't want to deal with us because we lack certain prerequisites. But, we're can't get help to get those prerequisites. I'm not sure if you understand or not. If others won't help me to become functional I'm not dysfunctional enough to receive services then I would rather be considered lacking capacity and incompetent. If nothing else we would be removed from the uncanny valley. If I received the stamp of lacking capacity then I would be more then likely eligible for certain services and others would be more likely to help me apply for these certain services.

In fact, I feel like had I been considered disabled from jump as a child and more disabled then my parents and the doctors and their stupid DSM believed and said I think I would've received a lot more services as a child including social skills training and lots of things explained to be.

In other words, think of it like Dante's Inferno. Dante had to literally go through the inferno to get to paradise.

That's why I asked this question.