>>>>Are you sure it shouldn't be "Semper ubi purus sub ubi"? Or is this shorter version the motto of the company where you work?
>>>
>>>Would that not need to be "Semper ubi puri sub ubi" ?
>>
>>If we've accepted "ubi" for a verb, grammar is lost already ;).
>
>Of course! BUT a lawyer in germany would press for "Analoge Anwendung" (dunno if "Similar application" is a semi-standard way of argument in american law) of the rule that ending of adjective and noun have to be equal. Ubi interpreted as verb makes it clearly a non-noun[keeping firmly in line of non-sense!], but IAC it has an ending<g>. Sort of duck typing salted with some Catch-22 from legalese...("this rule is meant ONLY for nouns. If there is no noun, any word having an ending can be made subject to this rule")
>
>>>And it's probably just a stopgap for law suits, as suits are often wished for in large corporations.
>>
>>You mean, "washed" - to be in line with the topic? And to keep irony in line, "washed and ironed"... though I doubt that any kind of suits are washed anymore; they are taken to the cleaners.
>
>No undergarments might translate into automatic sexual harassment risking suits. And to discriminate against such suits is still allowed or is that changing as well ? Or is the only discrimination allowed nowadays the one leading directly into leagal trouble and lawyer fees ?
>Does Casual Friday coupled with non-adherence to "Semper ubi puri sub ubi" automatically lead to such suits ?
>

Non-adherence would go well beyond casual IMO <g>.

I'm telling you, some of the conversations around here....