First, a Minnesota lawyer has been suspended by the state Supreme Court for a year because he lied about the fact that his client had died during settlement negotiations.   In fact, 3 months after his clients’ death, he sent an email to the lawyer for the other side claiming that the client was only ”hospitalized”.  Apparently, he forgot that a lawyer has an obligation to notify the opposing party and the court right away if his client dies.

Second, two women were arrested last weekend trying to board a plane at Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport when check-in agents realized that the elderly man in the wheelchair with them was not breathing.  The women claimed that he was “just resting”.   “He was pale, but he wasn’t dead.”

It didn’t work in the Monty Python skit either:   dead parrot skit.  

Lighten up: it was just an April Fools Day gag.

Thanks to the Under the Radar blog, here is a very useful guide (which includes some off-color language) to corporate-speak, including such classics as: “Open the Kimono”, “Agree to Disagree”, “It Is What It Is” and “Ping”.

It’s not only lawyers who endanger the English language!

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, 
 
“Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.” 
 
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude. 
 
“She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a lawyer.” 
 
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?” 
 
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.” 
 
The man smiled and responded, “You must be a businesswoman.” 
 
“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?” 
 
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s my fault.”

A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled last week that the Family and Medical Leave Act does not provide protection to an employee who took a seven-week trip to the Philippines to participate in a faith healing event with her husband. 

Maria Tayag worked as clerk at Lahey Hospital.  Her husband had a number of serious chronic medical conditions, including kidney disease and rheumatoid arthritis.  Ms. Tayag routinely requested and was approved for intermittent FMLA leave to care for her husband for a day or two.  In 2006, however, she requested seven weeks of leave.  When Ms. Tayag failed to provide the requested documentation and left for the Philippines without approval, the hospital terminated her employment.  She later sued for FMLA discrimination and harassment.

In the Philippines, the Tayags spent three and a half weeks attending a “Pilgrimage of Healing Ministry” at St. Bartholomew Parish, a Roman Catholic church. Mr. Tayag stated that he is “a believer of the faith healing,” and the priest at St. Bartholomew was renowned for his “miraculous healing” abilities. At no point during the trip did Mr. Tayag receive medical treatment or visit a health care professional. Aside from attending St. Bartholomew, the Tayags visited friends, family, and other churches.

 Ms. Tayag argued that she was entitled to FMLA leave because she provided care for her husband during their trip to the Philippines by assisting him with his basic needs, providing psychological comfort, carrying his luggage, pushing his wheelchair, and administering his medications. The Court conceded that employees are entitled to FMLA leave if they are directly  involved in the process of providing psychological support for a spouse or parent.  Earlier cases suggest that such care might include driving a parent to counseling sessions and helping with basic needs, or that simply being present at the hospital during the treatment of a stepdaughter was providing psychological ‘care’.

 Ms. Tayag also argued that her ill husband could not have attended this pilgrimage without her, and that it  treated the psychological aspect of her husband’s serious medical condition.  The hospital, for its part, argued that the trip to the Philippines was not covered because Mr. Tayag sought “miraculous healing”, not medical care.  In support of its position, the hospital pointed out that Catholic priests are not identified as “health care providers” under the FMLA (although certain Christian Science practitioners are so designated).

 Ultimately, the Court did not directly decide whether providing psychological support and care for a seriously ill spouse on a trip for non-medical religious purposes is a protected activity under the FMLA, although it intimidated that there must be some medical purpose for FMLA coverage.  Instead, the Court focused on the fact that nearly half of the Tayags’ trip was spent visiting friends, family, and local churches. “The FMLA does not permit employees to take time off to take a vacation with a seriously ill spouse, even if caring for the spouse is an “incidental consequence” of taking him on vacation.”  

 While it is unlikely that one of your employees will request FMLA time for a faith-healing pilgrimage, this case does remind us that employees may be entitled to unpaid leave for a wide variety of activities necessary to care for and support an ill family member.

Reading this motion - To compel defense counsel to wear shoes without holes at trial – has got me thinking about all sorts of other motions that I’ve overlooked in the past.  To wit:

• Motion to require counsel to use mouthwash;
• Motion to prohibit counsel from wearing that hideous tie (you know which one I mean);
• Motion to compel counsel to be more organized so that we can move things along;
• Motion to require counsel to write shorter and more readable briefs; and
• Motion to prohibit counsel from acting like such a putz.

Feel free to add your own.

Hat Tip:  Practiceblawg.