# Muslim woman teacher sues U.S. school after being denied three weeks unpaid leave to make



## Big Don (Dec 14, 2010)

*Muslim woman teacher sues U.S. school after being denied three weeks unpaid leave to make pilgrimage to Mecca
*


 Daily Mail EXCERPT:
Last updated at 6:48 PM on 14th December 2010
 	 A school district is being sued for not allowing a Muslim teacher to take unpaid leave to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.
The  Federal Government has brought the case on behalf of Safoorah Khan,  claiming that it is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
It  is the duty of every Muslim to join the million of pilgrims at the Hajj  in Mecca at least once in their lifetime - and the middle school teacher  had hoped to go in 2008.

 Khan had started at Berkeley School, in the suburbs of Chicago,  Illinois, in 2007 and asked for unpaid leave of three weeks to visit  Saudi Arabia.
After the education district twice denied her request, Khan wrote to the board  that 'based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying  performing Hajj'.
She resigned shortly thereafter, according to the  lawsuit filed in federal court.
END EXCERPT
Um, school teachers work during the school year, that is the central point of being a school teacher. Had she taken vacation time, this, in all likelihood, would have still been an issue.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 14, 2010)

Big Don said:


> *The Federal Government has brought the case on behalf of Safoorah Khan, claiming that it is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.*
> *<snip!>*
> 
> Um, school teachers work during the school year, that is the central point of being a school teacher. Had she taken vacation time, this, in all likelihood, would have still been an issue.


 

1) It *is* a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It's not like she could make Hajj in July, and accomodations need to be made; I have to wonder why it might not be another _year,_ though, even given the extensive prepartations necessary.

2) This is one sort of thing _substitutes_ are supposed to be there for.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 14, 2010)

If they are able a muslim should go once in a life time, no?
She wasn't able due to work commitments.
She should have put more senority into her job first, then a few years down the road asked for the LOA. She was hired as a teacher in a public school, what did she expect??
Then again, she only asked for a LOA, I may have given it to her had I been the district.


----------



## granfire (Dec 14, 2010)

> The pilgrimage occurs from the 8th to 12th day of Dhu al-Hijjah, the 12th and last month of the Islamic calendar. Because the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, eleven days shorter than the Gregorian calendar used in the Western world, the Gregorian date of the Hajj changes from year to year. Ihram is the name given to the special state in which Muslims live while on the pilgrimage.


well, considering the Holiday follows the lunar calendar, it's not in the same month every year.

However, I think there is also the matter of 'just started' the job...hajj or not, that's pushing it.
never mind... 2007-december2008...


----------



## Big Don (Dec 14, 2010)

> The *Hajj*  is the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. It is one of the largest annual pilgrimages in the world, and is the fifth pillar of Islam, a religious duty that must be carried out *at least once in their lifetime* by every able-bodied Muslim *who can afford to do so*.


 Being able to afford to do so, would involve having the free time to do so. Um, at least once in her lifetime, unless she has a terminal disease, she's got time, to go on her own time.
The Hajj moves around based on the Islamic calendar, so, wouldn't it be reasonable for her to wait until such a time that it lines up with scheduled school holidays? 
Three weeks? It is less than a day's travel time each way, thanks to jet airliners, and is a five day event, thus, if she took 9 days off, that would still give her plenty of time to get there, participate and return without taking the three weeks she demanded off.
In fact, had she waited until 2009, Eid al-adha was November 27th, so, she could have easily taken 2 or three days more than the 4 to 5 days off schools take for Thanksgiving these days and avoided any hassle with her employer. She chose not to do so. This is not the fault, or responsibility of her employer.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 14, 2010)

I'm not saying it's right, but it is a clear cut violation of the act, based on the language, as she has the appearance of being compelled to choose (I think she probably knew this when she resigned), and no attempt at reasonable accomodation was made _based on a labor contract_. Labor contracts cannot do this, under the act:



> c) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization--
> (1) *to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;*
> (2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
> (3) *to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section*.


 
If the contract made no provision for accomodating this instance-and it was the contract itself that was used as a reason to deny her request-then the contract itself, and, by extension, the union and the school district-is in violation of the act.

I don't disagree with anything anyone has said here- though I should point out that, lunar calendar or no, it always starts on the 7th day of the 12th month-and, because of the nature of the Islamic lunar calendar, the exact dates aren't determined until it's very close-that's why she needed more time:Hajj is based upon the visibility of the waxing crescent after the new moon, and that may even be different in Chicago where she would leave from than it would be in Mecca.

Another factor might be her being compelled by her husband to do their pilgrimage that year. It's also worth pointing out that, while the matter of time scale is different, accomodations are made for Jewish and Christian high holy days. It's also a matter of law-although an altogether separate one-that if she were in the National Guard and deployed for three weeks-or three *years*-her job would be waiting for her.

Labor law is like this,though, as is the Civil Rights Act:the union and the school district screwed themselves-she resigned, went on the Hajj, and now they'll probably have to reinstate her with back pay.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 14, 2010)

I don't know the specifics of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- but I would question how she was discriminated against.  Were other teachers granted similar leaves of absence for other religious actions?  Did they make any effort to accomodate her, for example agreeing to provide the time of another year, when she wasn't a brand new employee or when they had some time to line up a long term substitute?

I'm kind of on the fence.  I respect and encourage people to practice their religion, but I also feel that business needs to be able to run... and I don't see any explanation why she had to make the hajj THAT year.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 14, 2010)

From talking with Muslim people that I know, there seems to be an increasing 'pressure' to do this pilgrimmage at present.  It didn't used to be like that by their accounts.  It was something that you did if you had the money and the free-time from your 'real life' to go and do.

They feel that it is another facet of the hi-jacking of their faith by extremist elements that they rather wish would go away.  Indeed, the impression I got is that it has become something of a conspicuous outward showing of devotion rather than something sincere.

In the specific example above, to me it is simply one more to add to the pile of "I'm different so pander to me otherwise you're {insert suitably perjorative here implying some kind of -ism}".


----------



## billc (Dec 14, 2010)

As a teacher, she could retire when she is 55, and then make the hajj.  2 weeks at christmas, 1 week in the spring, close to 2 and a half months in the summer not including the 3 days of thanksgiving week plus all the other federal holidays.  Is there something more at work here?


----------



## David43515 (Dec 14, 2010)

billcihak said:


> As a teacher, she could retire when she is 55, and then make the hajj. 2 weeks at christmas, 1 week in the spring, close to 2 and a half months in the summer not including the 3 days of thanksgiving week plus all the other federal holidays. Is there something more at work here?


 
It`s not something that you can do any time of the year. You can`t do it by yourself. It`s kind of like the Super Bowl, it happens every year, but only once.

Without more info I don`t understand why it had to be that year (when she was still so new on the job) but apparently it`s a pretty clear violation of the act. I`m a relious minority too (Mormon) so I`m used to asking for certain tweaks to accomodate that, but I also understand that I need to be flexable  enough to work around the needs of my employer and coworkers. Tough call either way on this. The letter of the law vs common sense; without hearing her reasoning I`m not sure which side I`d favor.Either way, thanks to Elder and Sukerkin for shedding more light on the law and the mindset.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 14, 2010)

You know its like the smokers at work who head for smoke breaks every hour, while the rest of us have to work away, or the single guys doing the extra works after hours, while the family people bugger off. 

 Im an atheist, (stamping my feet with indignation), its not fair!! How come they get to do it and I dont????!!!


----------



## billc (Dec 14, 2010)

With humor intended, not only do you not get to take a smoking break, you also aren't going to get into heaven.  I'll pray for you.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 14, 2010)

You need 3 weeks because, as Elder said, you need to be already there when it is declared. 

That year may have been the only one that also worked for her husband.

She may have been ready to start a family, and the Haj is not easy to do with kids.

Every school district has substitute begging for work. She wanted to go, unpaid. No big deal.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 15, 2010)

I need to invent a religion that compels it's follower (me) to spend three weeks in the Caribbean every winter.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 15, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> I need to invent a religion that compels it's follower (me) to spend three weeks in the Caribbean every winter.



Fortunately for you, I'm already the head of such a religion.  For a small, one-time payment of $20 USD payable to me, you can have unlimited salvation complete with tans and pina coladas.  Buy now!


----------



## granfire (Dec 15, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Fortunately for you, I'm already the head of such a religion.  For a small, one-time payment of $20 USD payable to me, you can have unlimited salvation complete with tans and pina coladas.  Buy now!



Seven Day Junkists from El Segundo?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2010)

Had this woman been Christian rather than Muslim and asked for the same thing, we'd be hearing about the "Separation of Church and State"...


----------



## elder999 (Dec 15, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> I need to invent a religion that compels it's follower (me) to spend three weeks in the Caribbean every winter.


 

It's called Antigua Sail Week. A week to sailt there. A week of regatta. A week back. It's in December, and you can pick any number of Caribbean ports to set sail from with a charter.......

......trust me, it's a religious experience you won't forget. :lfao:



Big Don said:


> Had this woman been Christian rather than Muslim and asked for the same thing, we'd be hearing about the "Separation of Church and State"...


 
Hardly. 




Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 (&#8220;Title VII&#8221 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. This means that: 

Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion. Employees cannot be required to participate&#8212;or refrain from participating&#8212;in a religious activity as a condition of employment.Employers must reasonably accommodate employees&#8217; sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employerEmployers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
Employers may not retaliate against employees for asserting rights under Title VII.
Title VII provides that an employer must_ reasonably accommodate_ an employee's religious beliefs and practices unless doing so would cause &#8220;undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.&#8221; 

To avoid coming under Title VII, the employer *must* show they offered or tried to make a reasonable accomodation-or that such an accomodation would have been an undue hardship to them: costs, administrative, safety.If the woman had had surgery, or been sick, she could be out of work for three weeks with a substitute taking her place-in fact, I'm sure the EEOC lawyers will find several examples just like that to demonstrate that her merely being absent from work was not an undue hardship.

To come under TItle VII, she just has to show that she informed her employer of a conflict, and that she was subject to adverse action-in this case, her resigning qualifies, because the employer didn't make an attempt at reasonable accomodation, and merely told her that there was nothing in the contract that obligated them to. 

It may have been a scam from the beginning, but if so, it's one that's probably going to work. According to the EEOC, suits like these have increased over 50% since the 70's, and *payouts* have increased over 160%.

Think about where I live. If a Navajo or Pueblo needs a week or two off from work for some obscure religious ceremony that _they can't even talk about in detail_, they're *accomodated*-though they may have to take vacation time to do so. I regularly eat Peyote, and I'm subject to regular random drug testing, and I worked for the federal government while doing so for more than 15 years. If I was in a ceremony on the weekend and was too tired to come to work Monday, I'd have been accomodated.....I'd also be something of a slacker and defeating the intent of the ceremony, but that's neither here nor there.

This is a very serious law that almost always comes down on the side of sincere religious belief. If they'd said she could take vacation time, or offered some other accomodation instead of just saying that the contract didn't obligate them, they might have a chance, but it just doesn't look that way.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 15, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Fortunately for you, I'm already the head of such a religion. For a small, one-time payment of $20 USD payable to me, you can have unlimited salvation complete with tans and pina coladas. Buy now!


 
I don't know, man. It sounds good and all, but given your political tendencies I have a feeling that the tithing requirements are rather steep.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 15, 2010)

We obviously don't know all the facts about the case so it makes it hard to judge here not that it stops the 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' types having a go anyway. For all we know she was told she could go then wasn't allowed to, there's loads of reasons why she could be suing and not just for the money as I imagine it will be costing to go to court.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 15, 2010)

She was a new employee; it's not uncommon in my experience for new employees to be on restricted leave status until they complete their probation.   Any leave takes significant justification.  We don't know what was scheduled during that 3 week period; would it change things if it were a period of major tests or key evaluations of the new teacher?  A police recruit trying to take 3 weeks of during the academy is almost certainly out of luck; we were discouraged from even taking sick days because it is so easy to fall behind and miss essential training.  One of my classmates's wife had a baby during the session; he missed a total of two days -- and that was with having to travel interstate.

I support practicing your religion.  And I respect that she was taking unpaid leave.  My personal feeling is that the school probably should have been able to work with her -- but I'm also unwilling to say that the school should have been forced to accomodate her for a 3 week period, for something that is a lifetime obligation, not a "must be now" obligation unless she could justify the reason it had to be that year.  Making the hajj with her 90 year old father, pregnancy, even restrictions on her husband could sway me -- especially since she was asking for unpaid leave.  I'd also like to know how much time she gave the school.  If she sprung it on them "I'm leaving next week...", it's one thing.  If she started asking in September, it's another.  In other words, to me, accommodation really suggests both sides make an adjustment or compromise.  She needed to give the school enough notice to work out alternate plans to cover her classes just like they may have been obligated to let her take the time.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 15, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> I don't know, man. It sounds good and all, but given your political tendencies I have a feeling that the tithing requirements are rather steep.



Salvation doesn't come cheap, brother.  Neither does a nice, smooth Jamaican rum and a sunny white beach all to yourself.  Look into your heart, I think you will come to the right answer.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 15, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> there's loads of reasons why she could be suing and not just for the money as I imagine it will be costing to go to court.


 
This is an EEOC suit. She's not footing the bill for it; we all are, with our tax dollars. It's the Federal Government that's suing, not her, and it's mostly to get her job back-though there'll be back pay and benefits included, as there usually are with these things...


----------



## granfire (Dec 15, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> We obviously don't know all the facts about the case so it makes it hard to judge here not that it stops the 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' types having a go anyway. For all we know she was told she could go then wasn't allowed to, there's loads of reasons why she could be suing and not just for the money as I imagine it will be costing to go to court.



True.

But sadly some elements have taken on the unreasonable causes to make a buck off.
In the US there is mucho $$ to be made to be offended.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 15, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> She was a new employee; it's not uncommon in my experience for new employees to be on restricted leave status until they complete their probation.


 
She was not a new employee. She started in 2007, I assume Sept. The Haj for 2008 was in Dec. So she would have completed one full academic year prior to going.

The article also mentions that she filed the complaint in Nov 2008, so she gave at least one month's warning. 

There is not much that a teacher does that a substitute cannot do for a short period of time.


----------



## granfire (Dec 15, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> She was not a new employee. She started in 2007, I assume Sept. The Haj for 2008 was in Dec. So she would have completed one full academic year prior to going.
> 
> The article also mentions that she filed the complaint in Nov 2008, so she gave at least one month's warning.
> 
> There is not much that a teacher does that a substitute cannot do for a short period of time.



Then again, subs don't do it for free, and schools are at this time chronically understaffed, so being gone 3 weeks at the end of the semester, when finals are due and all that jazz can be a bit too much to ask for from your boss.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 15, 2010)

subs don't work for free, but then again the teacher was not going to be drawing pay. Early December is not typically when a high school semester ends when they ghave a semester system. It's usually late January.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> subs don't work for free, but then again the teacher was not going to be drawing pay. Early December is not typically when a high school semester ends when they ghave a semester system. It's usually late January.


Uh, in the US, it's usually a week before Christmas to just after New Years.


----------



## granfire (Dec 15, 2010)

this week is it around here in terms of semester endings...


----------



## David43515 (Dec 15, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Salvation doesn't come cheap, brother. Neither does a nice, smooth Jamaican rum and a sunny white beach all to yourself. Look into your heart, I think you will come to the right answer.


 

ROLF! You remind me of a buddy who wanted to start his own cult for "tax puposes, babes, and aquiring minions". :angel:


I hate to sound like I`m sucking up, but Elder999 always seems to have something pretty inciteful to say. I wonder if it`s the Peyote talkin`.


----------



## granfire (Dec 15, 2010)

David43515 said:


> ROLF! You remind me of a buddy who wanted to start his own cult for "tax puposes, babes, and aquiring minions". :angel:
> 
> 
> I hate to sound like I`m sucking up, but Elder999 always seems to have something pretty inciteful to say. I wonder if it`s the Peyote talkin`.


insight or incite? 
:lfao:


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2010)

David43515 said:


> ROLF! You remind me of a buddy who wanted to start his own cult for "tax puposes, babes, and aquiring minions". :angel:


Who couldn't use a few minions?


----------



## granfire (Dec 16, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Who couldn't use a few minions?



do they do toilets and windows? Or at least dishes!


----------



## Mark Jordan (Dec 16, 2010)

As a teacher she has responsibility for the students she's teaching.  She should not expect to be able to take holiday during term time and 3 weeks is too much.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 16, 2010)

Mark Jordan said:


> As a teacher she has responsibility for the students she's teaching. She should not expect to be able to take holiday during term time and 3 weeks is too much.


 
What if she fell ill?

What if she was in the National Guard and got called for duty?

What about jury duty?

The law is about the employer making reasonable accomodation if they can't prove undue hardship. A first year law student can shoot the school's reasons down.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 16, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> What if she fell ill?


 That is why they have substitutes, not so teachers can take trips to the other side of the planet.





> What if she was in the National Guard and got called for duty?


 There are laws directly on point for that, which do not apply in this case because "Sometime in her lifetime." Does not and did not mean the three weeks she demanded.





> What about jury duty?


 There are laws directly on point for that, which do not apply  in this case because "Sometime in her lifetime." Does not and did not  mean the three weeks she demanded.





> The law is about the employer making reasonable accomodation if they can't prove undue hardship. A first year law student can shoot the school's reasons down.


Someone without 1 minute of law school can point out that "Sometime in her lifetime." does not and did not mean the three weeks she demanded.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2010)

I imagine that in the States as well as here substitute teachers are cheaper than full time ones.
Perhaps she was promised the time off and then they reneged on that, it would be a good reason to sue. Whoever is paying the court costs they must think she has a reasonable case otherwise why pay?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 16, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I imagine that in the States as well as here substitute teachers are cheaper than full time ones.
> Perhaps she was promised the time off and then they reneged on that, it would be a good reason to sue.


That has not been alleged.





> Whoever is paying the court costs they must think she has a reasonable case otherwise why pay?


Gee, isn't it interesting that the Obama Justice Department gets involved in this, yet wanted nothing to do with the Black Panthers outside the polling place in 2008?


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2010)

Big Don said:


> That has not been alleged.
> Gee, isn't it interesting that the Obama Justice Department gets involved in this, yet wanted nothing to do with the Black Panthers outside the polling place in 2008?


 

Perhaps you should separate your Justice system from the government and not have elected court officers including sherriffs etc?


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 16, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Gee, isn't it interesting that the Obama Justice Department gets involved in this, yet wanted nothing to do with the Black Panthers outside the polling place in 2008?



The Bush Justice Department decided not to file a criminal case before Obama was even inaugurated, troll.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2010)

Big Don said:


> That has not been alleged.
> Gee, isn't it interesting that the Obama Justice Department gets involved in this, yet wanted nothing to do with the Black Panthers outside the polling place in 2008?


 

This isn't a Justice Department case-it's the EEOC-for the umpteenth time. It's what they do, based upon some pretty strict guidelines, which this case clearly falls within. It's just that simple-no plot, no conspiracy-except maybe on the part of the woman who initiated the complaint.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 16, 2010)

elder999 said:


> This isn't a Justice Department case-it's the EEOC-for the umpteenth time. It's what they do, based upon some pretty strict guidelines, which this case clearly falls within. It's just that simple-no plot, no conspiracy-except maybe on the part of the woman who initiated the complaint.


 

If you take the right to complain away surely you will also be taking rights away from everyone. This case may be just her being awkward or whatever but take away the right to go to court for this and you'll find that you've taken away your rights to go to court for what maybe a serious case for you. 
She may have a case or may not but if your laws etc say she has a right to complain she must be allowed to do so. One day it might be you who has to complain.


This is 'you' as in everyone btw not 'you' as in just Elder even if he is being 'inciteful'


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 16, 2010)

Big Don said:


> That is why they have substitutes, not so teachers can take trips to the other side of the planet. There are laws directly on point for that, which do not apply in this case because "Sometime in her lifetime." Does not and did not mean the three weeks she demanded. There are laws directly on point for that, which do not apply in this case because "Sometime in her lifetime." Does not and did not mean the three weeks she demanded.
> Someone without 1 minute of law school can point out that "Sometime in her lifetime." does not and did not mean the three weeks she demanded.


 

All she needs to prove is that her going did not cause undue hardship to the employer. Since her being off for 3 weeks for any other reason does not cause undue hardship, then the school dustrict does not really have a case.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 16, 2010)

elder999 said:


> This isn't a Justice Department case-it's the EEOC-for the umpteenth time. It's what they do, based upon some pretty strict guidelines, which this case clearly falls within. It's just that simple-no plot, no conspiracy-except maybe on the part of the woman who initiated the complaint.


The Justice department is the one suing the school district, at the behest of the EEOC, but, Justice brought the suit.


----------



## Ray (Dec 16, 2010)

What is the vacation accrual and usage policy?  If she can accrue the time and take it off in one chunk (assuming it fits the existing policy) then she should get.

If the policy doesn't allow that much vacation accruing, or it doesn't allow someone to take it off in that big of a chunk, then too bad.

If she was Muslim when hired, then she probably should have checked the bennies & policies to make sure they fit with her needs.  If she converted after being hired, then she should make a decision as to whether the job requirements fit her personal needs.

I've known people who have changed jobs after religious conversions...I've known people who have a religious belief that caused them to reject jobs.

I think this may give her a fine opportunity to make a personal sacrifice for her beliefs.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 16, 2010)

Big Don said:


> The Justice department is the one suing the school district, at the behest of the EEOC, but, Justice brought the suit.


 
Yes-but-unlike the 2008 Black Panther case, which was invested by the DOJ's Civil Rights section, the DOJ has no choice or say so in representing the suit once the EEOC has made the determination and sent it to them. It's also worth pointing out that there are several steps required for the process to reach that point, including mediation -both sides have to sit down and make attempts to reach some sort of accomodation or settlement. Barring that, there is only a court case if one or both parties refuse arbitration.

The very fact that the EEOC has elected to bring a suit pretty much says she's going to win. Doesn't make it "right," or even fair, but they violated the law by not offering a reasonable accomodation and not being able to demonstrate that a three week absence constitutes "undue hardship" in any way.


----------



## David43515 (Dec 16, 2010)

granfire said:


> insight or incite?
> :lfao:


 
Oh my word. I can`t believe I did that. With most people it could be either, but in his case it`s deffinately the former.

Would you beileve I teach English? *Hangs head in shame*


----------



## granfire (Dec 16, 2010)

David43515 said:


> Oh my word. I can`t believe I did that. With most people it could be either, but in his case it`s deffinately the former.
> 
> Would you beileve I teach English? *Hangs head in shame*



LOL, lucky find. :angel:


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 17, 2010)

David43515 said:


> Oh my word. I can`t believe I did that. With most people it could be either, but in his case it`s deffinately the former.
> 
> Would you beileve I teach English? *Hangs head in shame*


 
Freudian slip lol?


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 18, 2010)

Just a word of advice here...  

It's OK to attack the message, but not the one delivering the message.  Keep in mind, that all it takes is one or two words, and that could easily make the difference.


----------

