Because the jury needs to decide between two people that got married for whatever reason whether to share insurance, be able to make medical decisions for each other (final episode of Boston Legal) or for tax purposes (the reason my dad and second wife got married) - none of which is illegal or at worst a gray area - versus a company firing an employee based of family status which is very, very illegal.
Marital status is generally not an exception to at-will termination.
I’m not sure why any court or company would give a rat’s ass about whether or not a married couple loves each other. That is not up for either of them to decide, nor are their personal relations either of their damn business.
Would someone on the fraud side please site one court case where a private company sued one of their employees because the marriage was under false pretenses, or where the employee sued for improper termination and lost? Just one?
I’m willing to set aside the fraud allegations. I’m not an attorney and I have to admit I don’t know the complexities of the law.
But I did have two questions back on page 1 which seemed to get lost in the whole fraud issue that I’d like to know your answer to:
-
You say you’re certain your girlfriend is completely straight, and “to your knowledge” (and that statement doesn’t exactly reek of certainty) your girlfriend and her fiance haven’t had sexual relations. I mean, are you really sure of that? It took one of my girlfriends over a year into our relationship to admit she wasn’t just bi, she was a lot closer to the lesbian side of orientation–and though I’d dated a couple of bisexual women before, I was floored by that. I mean, this just seems to me like a pretty big leap of faith for someone you’ve only “recently” started seeing.
-
You say Debbie is marrying Louise until she can get benefits at a theoretical new job. What happens if she doesn’t get said job? Or if the benefits at the new job aren’t great and Debbie decides she’d rather stay on Louise’s plan? Exactly how long are you willing to wait on Debbie being anchored to your girlfriend?
[ol]
[li]You’re not the first to suggest this. I can’t understand why people seem to think Louise is hiding this sordid lesbian past from me and now that she’s marrying a woman to share her benefits, hot lesbian sex is certainly to follow. Not everything is about sex, Dopers.[/li][li]If you’ll see my other posts in the thread, Debbie is starting her own law practice. There’s no new job to “get.”[/li][/ol]
You don’t have to read the question so literally. What if Debbie’s law practice does badly and she can’t purchase her own insurance?
If not everything is about sex, why on earth did you feel the need to say in the OP that Debbie is bisexual? If this is a purely platonic marriage solely for the purposes of Debbie getting insurance, what the hell does her sexual orientation have to do with that? Sorry, my hink detector is really starting to sound off.
As Really Not All That Bright said, and what if the law practice doesn’t take off? I don’t know about your area, but around here there is a massive glut of lawyers, not enough cases for law firms to take even in this litigious United States. Again, how long are you willing to wait for Debbie’s firm to make enough to actually start contracting insurance?
It’s interesting that in the OP you said that if you said “no” to this arrangement, Louise and Debbie would call it off with no regrets. You’ve been awfully hostile to people who have brought up some valid concerns to the arrangement. What is in this for you, truthfully?
Aren’t attorneys subject to their local bar associations ethics rules? Would a sham marriage for the purpose of defrauding an employer and an insurance provider violate these ethics rules? Seems like Debbie is potentially putting her law license at risk by taking this route.
YMMV. In some states it is along with discrimination based on sexual preference. My point is if you’re in one of those states and based on the scenerio that a woman turns in paperwork that she is marrying another woman, the company would be fighting an uphill battle in court.
I admit this is long and I only skimmed it, but it seem pretty comprehensive on the topic; the short answer (based on my skim) is that it wouldn’t be pursued as fraud by the health provider.
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=californialawreview
Where she might get in trouble is on the employer’s side, where the employer may be paying part of the health insurance premium. Not only might that result in firing, but I wonder if there’s a fraud element to that. Even if so, it’s unlikely IMO that the employer would waste the time pursuing it.
There is nothing in any canon of professional responsibility that prohibits marriages of convenience.
All right, perhaps I read the question too literally. I don’t know what would happen if her law practice doesn’t take off. I suppose I’m going to have to sit down with them this weekend and actually discuss these things.
I’m not really sure how I’ve been hostile, though. Maybe my last post was a little terse, but the other ones were simply engaging in the fraud vs. not fraud debate.
A medical “condition”? Organ transplant? Sex change? Not that it’s relevant, but inquiring minds want to know. (This inquiring mind does, anyway.)
How is this different from welfare fraud?
Welfare fraud is obtaining benefits by false pretenses. There are no false pretenses here; this will be a legal marriage. With a very few jurisdictions excepted, the requirements for marriage are almost laughably simple:
- a valid license;
- capacity (not being drunk or stoned or a minor or whatever);
- proof of dissolution of any prior marriages;
- recording (having the officiant sign the marriage certificate and/or report the marriage to the state).
That’s basically it. There are also some public policy issues which may result in the withholding of a marriage license, or later annulment, like consanguinity. Or having too many people. Or being of the same sex, in some places.
Nowhere is “actually being in love” or anything of the sort a requirement for a valid marriage.
A point I think that might help in intuitively understanding why this isn’t fraud is the fact that even in the case of someone illegally obtaining a green card by entering into a marriage of convenience, the marriage is still valid (at least according to the sources I’ve seen) even though a crime has been committed.
So here, the government says that Louise and Debbie are married. The insurance company only asks the legal relationship of the person you are adding to your insurance policy. When Louise says they are married, there will have been no deception at any point during the process. When one is seeking a green card, the government will question you about the type of relationship you have beyond simply looking at your marriage certificate. The marriage itself isn’t enough and the spouse in a marriage of convenience can only enter the country if they deceive the government.
Hell, Debbie should consider using the scenario in her new firm, advertising this situation as a legal solution to everyday problems that potential clients face.
I’m sorry, I won’t go into that level of detail.
Per your note I posed the question before and got no answer. I’ll ask again. If the 40 something attorney friend is (per your note) currently employed by the States Attorney’s office and has (assumedly) State employee insurance coverage, and is going to very shortly get expensive medical procedures performed including surgery WHY is she bailing on her job NOW instead of waiting until these procedures have been paid for under her current coverage?
Why bail now and have to do this insurance Kabuki dance instead of taking advantage of the State coverage?
Honestly … this whole thing is a big bag of nonsense and like several others I don’t think you are getting anything close to the real story from your “girlfriend”. There’s a sub text here you’re ignoring. Two responsible, professional rational adults would not go after a sitcom like stunt like this unless there was mission critical reason for doing so and nothing you have cited so far rises anywhere close to that level.
As a an additional point to my previous post where in the US is a 40 YO attorney with years of experience working for the state’s attorney’s office paid less that 50K-60K (or more) annually? Your OP makes it sound like this woman is going to be living out of her car unless your girlfriend steps up.
She’s a single woman making 50-60K annually why is it so critically necessary for your girlfriend to step up in this scenario? Because the attorney doesn’t like her job? Because she is deciding against all common sense to go out on her own now, when she needs coverage the most?
In WI (for example) you have to apply for a marriage license at least 6 days in advance. With that and the company paperwork it seems to be cutting it a bit close.