Indiana diocese ordered to pay $1.95M in IVF-dismissal case [CWN]

[Rau]

I’m not sure what you’re going on about. The Church will cannot comply with anything which goes against Her teachings. Once She does She ceases to be the Church. The nonsensical issue I’m referring to is the teacher who sued the Church when she was in the wrong, after already having being warned. I already stated my so called “solution” as you put it wasn’t realistic, just a thought.

Are you kidding me? Have you seen some of the rulings of late to come out of US courts? I agree competent attorneys are a must but in an age where some priests and, Lord forgive me, some bishops and even cardinals aren’t the most competent it’s no wonder the Church can’t find decent attorneys to defend Her position.

We have insufficient information to form a vehement position on who’s right and who’s wrong in this particular court case! and who had good or not so good legal representation.

Suffice it to say that most of us agree that an organisation (including the Church) is within its rights to agree with its employees that restrictions on the latter’s rights and behaviours are a condition of continued employment. [Those who have said they disagree with that have declared unwillingness to support their position.]

 

[ServusHumilis]

We have insufficient information to form a vehement position on who’s right and who’s wrong in this particular court case! and who had good or not so good legal representation.

Suffice it to say that most of us agree that an organisation (including the Church) is within its rights to agree with its employees that restrictions on the latter’s rights and behaviours are a condition of continued employment. [Those who have said they disagree with that have declared unwillingness to support their position.]

The Catholic school teacher went against Church teaching and used IVF, after having already been warned not to. She was fired because of it. Not much else to say other than of course a jury likely of a non-Catholic majority with no reason to agree with Church teaching by default sided with the teacher whose lawyer no doubt made her out to be the victim.

 

[Rau]

The Catholic school teacher went against Church teaching and used IVF, after having already been warned not to. She was fired because of it. Not much else to say other than of course a jury likely of a non-Catholic majority with no reason to agree with Church teaching by default sided with the teacher whose lawyer no doubt made her out to be the victim.

The employment contract, as written and as modified through the actions of the parties, and as administered, is what matters. We are not in possession of all the facts, though I’m sure you feel you know all that matters. That what the teacher did is contrary to what Catholic schools wish is obvious, but does not determine that her dismissal was proper.

 

[ServusHumilis]

The employment contract, as written and as modified through the actions of the parties, and as administered, is what matters. We are not in possession of all the facts, though I’m sure you feel you know all that matters. That what the teacher did is contrary to what Catholic schools wish is obvious, but does not determine that her dismissal was proper.

Obviously it was. Plain and simple the Catholic Church isn’t in the business of employing those who don’t live by Her teachings. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain. I don’t give a flying fig about the contract. Where do you think the Church gets the money She pays her employees from? I for one am not willing to have my donations or tuitions paid out to someone such as this. How would we all feel if a Jewish school were sued for firing a teacher found out to have anti-semitic sympathies?

 

[Rau]

Obviously it was. Plain and simple the Catholic Church isn’t in the business of employing those who don’t live by Her teachings. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain. I don’t give a flying fig about the contract. Where do you think the Church gets the money She pays her employees from? I for one am not willing to have my donations or tuitions paid out to someone such as this. How would we all feel if a Jewish school were sued for firing a teacher found out to have anti-semitic sympathies?

 

[Seraphim73]

Obviously it was. Plain and simple the Catholic Church isn’t in the business of employing those who don’t live by Her teachings. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain. I don’t give a flying fig about the contract. Where do you think the Church gets the money She pays her employees from? I for one am not willing to have my donations or tuitions paid out to someone such as this. How would we all feel if a Jewish school were sued for firing a teacher found out to have anti-semitic sympathies?

Yes would anyone think twice if a Jewish school fired a teacher who publicly expressed support for Hitler or if Morris Brown College fired someone who publicly stated they were members and supporters of the KKK?

 

[otjm]

I’m not sure what you’re going on about. The Church will cannot comply with anything which goes against Her teachings. Once She does She ceases to be the Church. The nonsensical issue I’m referring to is the teacher who sued the Church when she was in the wrong, after already having being warned. I already stated my so called “solution” as you put it wasn’t realistic, just a thought.

Are you kidding me? Have you seen some of the rulings of late to come out of US courts? I agree competent attorneys are a must but in an age where some priests and, Lord forgive me, some bishops and even cardinals aren’t the most competent it’s no wonder the Church can’t find decent attorneys to defend Her position.

Re-read my posts. Whether she was wrong or not (and it is clear that she chose a path to pregnancy which the Church condemns) is not the issue.

The issue is that from the reports it would appear that the Church - the diocese and those who were in the line of responsibility for the contractual terms - mishandled the case, thus setting up her judgment.

Yes, I have seen rulings. I also have practiced law. And this forum is incapable of explaining all of the aspects of contract law which apply to this case.

People constantly make wrong decisions; that is what keeps our courts in business. And lacking sufficient understanding of law is what keeps others, who are watching the news, going up blind alleys and condemning the courts for what is essentially errors on the part of, in this case, the Church (potentially - as I have said, none of us have read the transcript).

If, in fact, the diocese merely slapped the wrists of the three male teachers who allegedly went to a strip club, then it would seem to me that the diocese blatantly failed to address an issue that was capable of understanding of just about anyone out there. That is, there should be no excuse on the part of the teachers that they did not understand that would not comply with the contractual terms.

Many, many people are not aware of the Church’s stance on IVF; and it appears that the diocese seriously failed to address the issue when they could have. Thus I see no surprise in the verdict. If in fact all of that was true, the diocese brought it on themselves. HR is an area fraught with landmines; and they have no choice but to walk through that area. If they are going to put terms in contracts, then they better well understand how to handle them, or results such as this will continue to occur.

Thus you have at least one instance where it appears the Church did not enforce the terms of the contract as they should have; and this sets up decisions such as the current one.

In addition, from the facts, it appears the diocese mishandled this case from the start. That, too, sets up the decision. It is not that the courts are wrong, it is that the diocese was wrong - or certainly appears to have been, and not once but in a series of matters.

I have no problem with the Church requiring this type of clause. But common sense (and simply paying attention to what goes on) would indicate that a fairly thorough explanation of what is expected and required (or prohibited) needs to be made. Whether that needs to be done before the contract is signed, or in a required group meeting once a year is up to the attorneys representing the Church. And good ones are not at all hard to find.

Coupled with that has to be a just application of the rules; they need to be clear, and uniformly enforced without unreasonable delay.

This case has the markings of otherwise.

 

[otjm]

Obviously it was. Plain and simple the Catholic Church isn’t in the business of employing those who don’t live by Her teachings. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain. I don’t give a flying fig about the contract. Where do you think the Church gets the money She pays her employees from? I for one am not willing to have my donations or tuitions paid out to someone such as this. How would we all feel if a Jewish school were sued for firing a teacher found out to have anti-semitic sympathies?

You may not give a flying fig about the contract, but the contract is the issue at hand.

And there are untold numbers of people who do not know that IVF is considered immoral. That leaves it up to the diocese to make clear what is prohibited; and the facts seem to indicate that they blew that one thoroughly.

What you need to think about is your funds supporting the principal and staff. and other individuals representing the diocese who made all the errors which set this case up.

 

[cena]

Following over 51 hours of jury deliberation, a federal district court has ordered the Diocese of Fort Wayne ? South Bend to pay a former Catholic school teacher $1.95 million in …

More…

This is so unjust honestly

 

[otjm]

This is so unjust honestly

Go look again at the alleged facts of the case.

On facts, it appears just. You can be as mad as you want; but it appears that repeated conduct on the part of the diocese through their HR department (if such even exists), and their principal repeatedly failed to properly follow the contract terms and procedures.

In other words, they handed her the verdict.

No one - the Church included - can get away with writing contract terms, and then a) failing to properly enforce them (the three male teachers) and then b) further dilly dallying around and appearing to give tacit approval of that which they said at the beginning was wrong.

 

[cena]

Go look again at the alleged facts of the case.

On facts, it appears just. You can be as mad as you want; but it appears that repeated conduct on the part of the diocese through their HR department (if such even exists), and their principal repeatedly failed to properly follow the contract terms and procedures.

In other words, they handed her the verdict.

No one - the Church included - can get away with writing contract terms, and then a) failing to properly enforce them (the three male teachers) and then b) further dilly dallying around and appearing to give tacit approval of that which they said at the beginning was wrong.

But the diocese countered that Herx, like every other diocesan school employee, signed a morality clause agreeing to live in accordance with Catholic doctrine"
lifesitenews.com/news/indiana-catholic-diocese-faces-legal-setback-in-case-of-teacher-fired-for-u

 

[otjm]

But the diocese countered that Herx, like every other diocesan school employee, signed a morality clause agreeing to live in accordance with Catholic doctrine"
lifesitenews.com/news/indiana-catholic-diocese-faces-legal-setback-in-case-of-teacher-fired-for-u

Go read all my prior posts. The issue is never that simple. The diocese appears to have made repeated errors in the matters; and they appeared at least at one point to have given tacit acceptance to what she did.

They also appear to have failed to appropriately sanction three other teachers who allegedly did something that was even more clearly wrong, in that one would not have to have a detailed description to know that their alleged action violated the terms of the contract - and it appears they got not much more that a “tsk tsk”.

You may not like it, but the appearance from information available makes the case look fair. It is insufficient to write a contract term, and them apply it one was in once circumstance, and another way in another.

 

[Trader]

Go read all my prior posts. The issue is never that simple. The diocese appears to have made repeated errors in the matters; and they appeared at least at one point to have given tacit acceptance to what she did.

They also appear to have failed to appropriately sanction three other teachers who allegedly did something that was even more clearly wrong, in that one would not have to have a detailed description to know that their alleged action violated the terms of the contract - and it appears they got not much more that a “tsk tsk”.

You may not like it, but the appearance from information available makes the case look fair. It is insufficient to write a contract term, and them apply it one was in once circumstance, and another way in another.

I have a lot to say about this case. I live only two miles from this parish and attended Mass there yesterday. Saint Vincent is the largest parish in our diocese and I have known the pastor involved in this case for over 30 years. It is an outstanding parish that under the now retired Msgr John Kuzmich, became our largest parish after he was sent there by Bishop D’Arcy. He had been rector of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception. This one parish supplied 30% of priestly vocations for the diocese for more than a decade. It has always been liturgically correct, although it uses more contemporary music than the 160 year old cathedral, where I am still a member.

I spent time on Christmas Day with some former teachers in our diocese who read from the employee manual. In an effort to avoid legalese, it used terms like “common sense”. The actual contract requires teachers to familiarize themselves with Catholic teaching and act according to it.

One of the big factors in the case was that three male teacher were only suspended after they were kicked out of a strip club for allegedly groping a stripper. A key difference is that they were repentant. I guarantee that if any of them had claimed the right to grope strippers, they would have been fired. Emily Herx, on the other hand, claimed the right to undergo a third round of IVF after she was told it was seriously wrong. She also insisted that she could continue to teach after her refusal to change became public, and that the diocese must continue to pay for the procedure, even though it was excluded from the insurance contract.

Contrary to some of the posts here, she did not become pregnant. None of her eggs fertilized in the lab survived to implant in her uterus.

Also, the jury’s verdict is sure to be reduced even if the diocese loses its appeal. Even the plaintiff’s lawyer admits that federal law limits the claim for emotional distress to $300,000.
wane.com/2014/12/31/diocese-wants-ex-teachers-jury-award-cut/

 

[Trader]

Not true. The Catholic Church has a large number of ministerial positions that are lay. An Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, for example. Or a Music Minister.

That was one of the outcomes for the Hosanna-Tabor decision, that it is the religious organization that defines who their ministers are, not the State.

That is an important point that many have misrepresented. In Hosanna-Tabor, both sides agreed that the teacher was a minister. The court specifically refrained from trying to define who is or is not a minister-- it is not within their authority to decide who a church’s ministers are. It was outrageous that the EEOC ever ruled for the teacher at Hosanna-Tabor in the first place. That is one of the reasons the HT decision was 9-0.

In the Catholic Church, even consecrated religious men and women are lay persons. You have to be a deacon, priest, or bishop to no longer be a lay person. We have lots of lay ministers in the Church, and no court has the authority to challenge that.

The EEOC also ruled for the teacher in this case, but refused to enforce its own ruling because of the Hosanna-Tabor decision. This court case was only on the issue of sexual discrimination, as the grounds of violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act were thrown out by the court before trial. I agree with my diocese that this issue should also have been thrown out. It could mean that the Catholic Church illegally discriminates against women by admitting only males to Holy Orders. The issue of the morality of IVF was not supposed to be considered by the jury, but it seems it clearly was, and the verdict was one of sympathy for a woman who wanted another child by any means possible.

 

[Rau]

…The issue of the morality of IVF was not supposed to be considered by the jury, but it seems it clearly was, and the verdict was one of sympathy for a woman who wanted another child by any means possible.

Certainly morality of IVF is irrelevant here, given it is a legal process open to any person. I would have thought that the fundamental legal issue would be:

• is it permissible to discriminate in the hiring process by requiring an agreement not to indulge in IVF or other actions (or allow such to become known) that are contrary to Catholic teaching;
• is it permissible to put the same restrictions in an employment contract and to enforce same by termination of employment.

Assuming all the above is permissible (and surely that has been well established before now?) , then the matter would appear to rest on:

• Was the contract clear to a reasonable person;
• Was the contract administered and enforced fairly.

I can well imagine a jury thinking “how dare the Catholic Church seek to prevent this poor women having a baby…blah blah blah”. But you’d think that this basic question of employment law had been tested previously and was beyond doubt. Nevertheless, I can well imagine any weaknesses in the conduct of the school being seized upon (by the plaintive and the jury) to seek and defend a verdict sympathetic to the teacher. But like most others here - this is speculation.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

That is an important point that many have misrepresented. In Hosanna-Tabor, both sides agreed that the teacher was a minister. The court specifically refrained from trying to define who is or is not a minister-- it is not within their authority to decide who a church’s ministers are. It was outrageous that the EEOC ever ruled for the teacher at Hosanna-Tabor in the first place. That is one of the reasons the HT decision was 9-0.

In the Catholic Church, even consecrated religious men and women are lay persons. You have to be a deacon, priest, or bishop to no longer be a lay person. We have lots of lay ministers in the Church, and no court has the authority to challenge that.

The EEOC also ruled for the teacher in this case, but refused to enforce its own ruling because of the Hosanna-Tabor decision.

Actually the Diocese tried to make a Hosanna-Tabor argument in District Court and lost. The reason was, in summary, that the Judge did not believe that the position the teacher held was regarded as ministerial until the Diocese tried to justify firing her in court. There are ministerial positions at the school but none of the qualifications, contract clauses, or duties particular to those positions matched those of this teacher.

 

[Trader]

Actually the Diocese tried to make a Hosanna-Tabor argument in District Court and lost. The reason was, in summary, that the Judge did not believe that the position the teacher held was regarded as ministerial until the Diocese tried to justify firing her in court. There are ministerial positions at the school but none of the qualifications, contract clauses, or duties particular to those positions matched those of this teacher.

The whole school is a ministry of the parish. This particular parish subsidized the school with more tha $1 million in the last fiscal year.

When my brother served on the diocesan school board in Illinois, I provided him with a simple suggestion for the mission statement: “Catholic schools exist to assist parents in their obilgation to pass on the faith.” Reading, writing, and arithmetic are also nice, but can be done in other ways. Without the mission to pass on the faith, there is no reason to call the school Catholic. When school staff openly defy important elements of the faith, they subvert that mission. The judge was wrong to overrule the diocese in deciding who its ministers are and what their responsibilities are.

 

[otjm]

I spent time on Christmas Day with some former teachers in our diocese who read from the employee manual. In an effort to avoid legalese, it used terms like “common sense”. The actual contract requires teachers to familiarize themselves with Catholic teaching and act according to it.

If the diocese wants teachers to abide by Catholic teaching in their lives, they could be more specific. That may or may not have factored into the case.

One of the big factors in the case was that three male teacher were only suspended after they were kicked out of a strip club for allegedly groping a stripper. A key difference is that they were repentant.
Trader;12625775:

Not in a court of law. Repentance is for the confessional and the issue of reception of Communion afterwards. It is not for reinstatement.

They should have been canned, after following proper procedures. The purpose of the clause in the contract is to prevent these things from happening. The teachers are teaching students, who are still in formative stage as to their moral lives. As adults, we might be able to say - OK, they learned their lesson, give them a warning and lets move on. Students have a tendency beyond that of adults to blow things out of proportion and to miss some of the finer details. And not to make too fine a point there, reading these threads would indicate that adults are not all that good at sorting out such behavior coupled with repentance.

“Repentance” to a jury of non-Catholics has all the looks of “good old boys” treatment - hey, they were just guys, OK? What is so wrong with going to a strip club and groping a young woman who is almost entirely naked? I mean, com’on, they are guys, right? Boys will be boys, right? They were just having some fun - they didn’t rape her, did they? I mean com’on, they said they were sorry!

That is where that one is going to look like it was going.

Repentant? How about knuckle dragging morons with the moral IQ of an amoeba, so low they don’t belong within 1,000 feet of a school?

Which gets down to setting up the case for the next go-round.

There are more facts to this case than you and I have access to, and more aspects to contract law and HR law than we can go over in this thread. The appearance is still that the diocese screwed up, not once but several times. If they were advised by their attorneys concerning the reinstatement of the male teachers, they need to do some more research - preferably with a different law firm - and decide whether they are going to continue with the path they have been on; and if not, how they are going to change.

I am not suggesting that they cannot have such a clause in their contracts; but they need to be far more clear as to what is or is not acceptable conduct, what the process is if a teacher changes in it, and then they need to proceed absolutely according to the process set out. And repentance had better not be a part of it.

This case has all the markings of a bunch of “civilians” - people who do not realize the impact of their decisions - being in charge of disciplinary proceedings, and operating on a “fell good” level. In other words, not being willing to fire someone when it is called for. And if such is the case - and the facts certainly lend themselves to that interpretation, then the diocese got what it set itself up to get - a sizeable judgment.

If you are going to put such clauses in contracts, then before you hire the first individual, you need to run through the scenarios of what happens if you - the employer - don’t do things correctly. Someone, or a bunch of someones, screwed up, it appears.

Putting aside this is a case involving the Church; case law and trials are not favorable to employers in general. Firing someone is a minefield and them’s the facts - and the courts really don’t care how unfair some people may think that is. It is not impossible to fire someone for violation of contract, but all the 'i’s" and t’s" better be dotted and crossed, and in proper order.

 

[otjm]

The whole school is a ministry of the parish. This particular parish subsidized the school with more tha $1 million in the last fiscal year.

When my brother served on the diocesan school board in Illinois, I provided him with a simple suggestion for the mission statement: “Catholic schools exist to assist parents in their obilgation to pass on the faith.” Reading, writing, and arithmetic are also nice, but can be done in other ways. Without the mission to pass on the faith, there is no reason to call the school Catholic. When school staff openly defy important elements of the faith, they subvert that mission. The judge was wrong to overrule the diocese in deciding who its ministers are and what their responsibilities are.

That may be true, but it still leaves open the issue of unequal treatment between the male teachers and the female ones.

If the facts of the males being reinstated made it to the jury for consideration, I would suspect that it was part of the cause of such a long jury deliberation.

Let’s look from a juror’s perspective. They may not be able to see why the Church puts so much emphasis on IVF; but not all jurors are going to be in favor of good ol’ boys groping a nearly naked stripper.

So the boys get off with the diocese because of “repentance”, but a woman who dearly wants a child is fired for doing everything she can to have one. The latter is going to be seen by many as a flip side to abortion - that is, as an extremely positive thing. Meanwhile, it is ok to grope a nearly naked woman in public if you say “sorry…!”.

 

[Trader]

That may be true, but it still leaves open the issue of unequal treatment between the male teachers and the female ones.

If the facts of the males being reinstated made it to the jury for consideration, I would suspect that it was part of the cause of such a long jury deliberation.

Let’s look from a juror’s perspective. They may not be able to see why the Church puts so much emphasis on IVF; but not all jurors are going to be in favor of good ol’ boys groping a nearly naked stripper.

So the boys get off with the diocese because of “repentance”, but a woman who dearly wants a child is fired for doing everything she can to have one. The latter is going to be seen by many as a flip side to abortion - that is, as an extremely positive thing. Meanwhile, it is ok to grope a nearly naked woman in public if you say “sorry…!”.

I can’t dispute your judgment that the three male teachers should have been fired. It certainly would have helped the diocese’s court case. I don’t have all the facts in the incident, but I doubt that all three men groped the stripper. They were there together and all three were kicked out. It is highly likely that only one of them got touchy. These clubs would not exist if they permanently excluded all the customers who got out of hand once. No charges were filed.

The employee handbook for the diocese begins with a statement that the first aim of discipline is to correct a problem. Mrs Herx would not have been fired if her defense was that she did not know IVF was wrong and would stop. Instead she chose to publicly defy Church teaching. It was her decision to turn this into a scandal that could not be tolerated in a Catholic school. She does not deserve a financial windfall for that.