ASD, Legal Capacity and Employment

Post Reply New Topic

I have a question for anyone who is a lawyer or who is studying law since I'm not a lawyer. When a candidate applies for and job and is offered the position he/she has to sign an employment agreement which is a form of contract. According to contract law (if I understand properly) for a contract to be legally binding one has to satisfy certain elements for it to be legally binding. One of those elements is to be of a sound mind. In other words, being of sound mind is part of the elements for it to be legally binding.

According to Cornell Law School "A sound mind and memory means the person has sufficient mental capacity to understand their actions. "

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sound_m ... %20actions.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/capacit ... 0contracts.

Autism is a developmental and communication disorder. Some of us take things literally, miss non-verbal language and implied meanings even in written text, some have difficulty with abstract language. And, these are some of the things.

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?

I am not a lawyer, but I am a business major. This is not legal advice, and should not be construed as such.

Short short version: Yes*.

Short-ish version: It depends on the individual, but yes*, autistic individuals are more than capable of meeting the threshold of sound mind and mental capacity. It has less to do with being able to translate legalese gibberish lawspeak, and more to do with whether or not you know how money and value and property work, or what it even means to enter a contract.

Less-short version: Contracts are often worded very specifically in order to prevent misunderstandings of obligation or intent. However, it is not uncommon for contracts to take advantage of that, and make it so jargon-heavy as to be nearly unreadable, or even to have inclusions which are technically illegal - and count on the obscurity of the document to get away with things. This intentional vagueness and lack of transparency inherent in many contracts is a separate issue from whether or not the individual is capable of grasping the concepts, were they explained clearly. An autistic individual who, for example, has a drivers license, drives a car, lives independently, goes grocery shopping, cooks their own food, manages their own money, etc, would more than likely* be said to be of sufficient sound mind and mental capacity to enter a contract - especially since they'd have to, to do a few of those things.

*likelihood varies from person to person based on a multitude of factors too complex to simplify onto any manner of meaningful universal or generalized statement.

There really are not many jobs in the USA which require the employee to sign a contract with the employer. Most jobs are at will, meaning the employer can terminate you with or without cause at any time.

Very, very, very, very few persons who are take a contracted position lack the capacity to enter into an enforceable contract.

An autistic person with an IQ of 70 probably lacks the capacity to contract as would any person with an IQ of 70. But it is hardly likely that a person an IQ of 70 would be asked to sign a contract as a condition of employment.

An autistic person who wonders if he or she lacks the capacity to contract probably has the capacity to contract.

^ Sort of.

There is a difference between being a contract-based employee, and signing an employment agreement. Most jobs (at least the ones I've had) require you to sign an employment agreement, which includes a part stating that you understand that the position is an at-will employment. While this is not a contract in the sense of a "contracted employee" explicitly hired per-contract, it is still a legally binding agreement (contract) between employee and employer. Even if all you had to sign was a W-2 tax form and a paper saying you read and received the employee handbook, that's still a contract.

Notable exceptions would be under-the-table jobs where there's no proof that you work for them, which opens up a whole new flavor of liability for both the employer and employee.

Thanks for trying to answer these questions. I guess I would have to consult a lawyer for consultation on this. I wonder how much is the average fee for this is?

Lawyers are generally expensive.

If you're hoping to get an answer to a generic question such as "can people with autism", they'll likely tell you the same thing. "It depends".

If you're asking specifically in regards to yourself, your level of awareness of the consequences, or possible consequences, of your actions and choices, highly likely* meets the threshold for sound mind and capacity. If you're capable of thinking to yourself "the language of this contract is hard to understand, maybe I should get a lawyer so I don't sign something unreasonable", you almost certainly* meet the threshold of sound mind and mental capacity.

*I am not a clinician, and do not diagnose or assess conditions for their severity.

What is the ultimate goal or objective of this inquiry?

Most lawyers will give you 15 or 30 mins for free on a phone consult.
You just have a quick question so I'm sure you can ask by phone.

I was just curious. That's all.

Cool Beans!

I don't know how many lawyers you know.

There's a difference between consultation and advice. He's looking for advice. No lawyer is giving it to him for free.

Yes, and the terms of the lawyer's insurance may not even cover advice given for free. Which would tend to discourage taking on the liability.

That being said if somebody isn't competent to sign employment paperwork, there's a high likelihood that they're aren't comment for the job.

Well, that complicates things a bit.

For liability and legal reasons, lawyers, doctors, etc, won't give specific answers to generic or hypothetical questions, even if you pay them. They are not allowed to, and it is sometimes dangerous for them to, professionally give "casual advice". If your question is "can a person with autism...?', then the answer you'll get is, "it depends". Because it depends.

If your question relates to a specific person, for example, if you asked "Can I personally, as a person with autism...?", then they can actually take a look at your specific case, and make a more accurate determination - in which case the answer you'll probably get will more likely be "probably", or "probably not", rather than "yes" or "no", since the final actual determination would have to be made by a judge, regarding a specific case, involving a specific person, and a specific contract.

No.

If you pay an attorney, he or she may well give you advice on a hypothetical specific question.

But you can’t expect to call up a lawyer and have the attorney answer your question for free.

I have researched and advised clients on many many hypothetical or let’s suppose situations. Always under a retention agreement.

Speaking not as a professional but as a lay person, I’d guess you have the legal capacity to enter into contracts. The common sense to do so is another thing.

Actually, I know several lawyers, having retained at least 15 of them and knowing several young lawyers who are friends of my children. That includes Harvard graduates.

I suppose things might be different where you practice, rse.

Here the Law Society directs people to free 30 minute consultations, like I said.

What is the difference between consultation vs advice?

I see. What you're saying is that it is based upon a specific case and that's how they judge it.