Why Do Lawyers Not Fight for Mentally Challenged Individuals in HR Misconduct Cases?

Every profession has its unique challenges, and lawyers are no exception. The question often arises, why do lawyers, who are supposed to fight for justice, not take up cases involving the rights of mentally challenged individuals who face mistreatment by HR employees? This article explores the context behind this phenomenon, the legal obligations, and the practical implications.

Understanding the Role of a Lawyer

Lawyers, while well-intentioned, cannot serve as a crusading platform for every cause they believe is just. The primary duty of a lawyer is to provide legal services to clients who can pay for those services. As a result, lawyers who cannot find cases that are financially viable may seek other opportunities to fulfill their professional and financial responsibilities.

The Reality of HR Discrimination

Employment discrimination against individuals with mental health challenges or neurodivergency is not as prevalent as many might think. Most employers understand and comply with the?America with Disabilities Act (ADA), which mandates reasonable accommodations for disabilities. However, these accommodations do not extend as far as completely waiving the requirement to meet job-related standards and qualifications.

For example, while it is the employer's responsibility to make reasonable adjustments for fully-capable employees, it does not mean that blind individuals can be excused from tasks related to their job, such as flying airplanes. The ADA sets limits on what employers are required to provide, ensuring a balance between accommodating disabilities and maintaining a productive work environment.

When we find inaccuracies, the ADA asserts that employers are not responsible for modifying job duties that are essential to the role. Essential functions are those that an employee must be able to perform, with or without reasonable accommodations, and include critical tasks that are fundamental to the job's purpose.

Legal Grounds and Practical Challenges

It is also important to recognize that much of what people think is unfair may not have a legal basis for a lawsuit. The equity of a case often depends on whether it meets certain legal criteria, such as proving intentional discrimination or demonstrating a lack of reasonable accommodations.

Sometimes, the law simply does not permit individuals to sue simply because they believe something is wrong. For instance, procedural requirements, such as filing a complaint with the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) before filing a lawsuit, are in place to ensure that all parties have due process. If a person fails to follow these steps, their case may be dismissed or deemed invalid.

Neurodivergent and Mental Health Challenges

Neurodivergent individuals and those with mental health challenges are entitled to protection under the ADA, but this does not mean that every instance of perceived mistreatment is actionable. Employers still have the responsibility to ensure that their HR practices comply with the ADA; however, employees must prove that this mistreatment is a direct result of their disability or neurodivergent status.

For a lawyer to take on such a case, they would need to demonstrate that the employer’s actions were discriminatory or that the employee faced substantial barriers in performing their job due to the lack of reasonable accommodations.

Conclusion

In summary, the reluctance of lawyers to take on cases where mentally challenged individuals face mistreatment by HR employees is not rooted in a lack of support for these causes but rather in economic and practical considerations. While the legal framework ensures that reasonable accommodations are made, employees must navigate a complex landscape to prove their rights.

As a society, we must continue to advocate for fair treatment and accessible workplaces. Lawyers can and should play a crucial role in this effort, but they must also adhere to established legal and professional norms to ensure effective and equitable resolution of cases.