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

[ServusHumilis]

So stupid. There shouldn’t even be any sort of contract other than “You don’t follow Catholic teaching, you don’t get to work for the Church.” Quite simple. No secular court should nor in my opinion even does have the authority to impose any such sanctions on the Church.

 

[ServusHumilis]

So stupid. There shouldn’t even be any sort of contract other than “You don’t follow Catholic teaching, you don’t get to work for the Church.” Quite simple. No secular court should nor in my opinion even does have the authority to impose any such sanctions on the Church. The Church should never have to be put in such a position. I can foresee the legal problems coming up in the future. It ain’t good. :nope: It’s too bad Catholic schools and churches aren’t extraterritorial properties of the Vatican so such issues would never be a worry. Not exactly a realistic thought though it would sure make things easier when such nonsensical issues like this come up.

 

[Brandall]

So stupid. There shouldn’t even be any sort of contract other than “You don’t follow Catholic teaching, you don’t get to work for the Church.” Quite simple. No secular court should nor in my opinion even does have the authority to impose any such sanctions on the Church. The Church should never have to be put in such a position. I can foresee the legal problems coming up in the future. It ain’t good. :nope: It’s too bad Catholic schools and churches aren’t extraterritorial properties of the Vatican so such issues would never be a worry. Not exactly a realistic thought though it would sure make things easier when such nonsensical issues like this come up.

Oh my. You really don’t want the Church as a single legal entity.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Why are there appellate courts? Because judges misinterpret the law. And if one reads appelate cases, trial judges do this on a fairly regular basis.

Hossana-Tabor was decided by the Supreme Court. No appellate court can overturn a Supreme Court decision.

 

[Mulligan2]

The only atrocity of justice is that employers have any say over the private lives of their employees.

Very succinctly and well stated.

 

[Rau]

Very succinctly and well stated.

If you believe so, plse comment on post #24.

 

[Mulligan2]

If you believe so, plse comment on post #24.

No. I provided my opinion on this thread topic. I’m not here to engage in debate on this topic. You can do that with other posters who choose to engage in debate.

 

[SuperLuigi]

How can you possibly approve of this atrocious decision?

Because it’s a liberal cause and a slap in the face of the Catholic Church, I’m sure.

 

[Rau]

No. I provided my opinion on this thread topic. I’m not here to engage in debate on this topic. You can do that with other posters who choose to engage in debate.

Lol. You should start a blog then!

 

[SuperLuigi]

If you believe so, plse comment on post #24.

I think the goal of some of the comments is to just get a rise out of conservative posters. I’ve seen this on here before, and it usually ends with thread deletions.

Don’t take the bait.

Also, notice the questionable response to this in #41. The word “you” should never appear in the News Forums unless an article is being quoted.

 

[Mulligan2]

I think the goal of some of the comments is to just get a rise out of conservative posters. I’ve seen this on here before, and it usually ends with thread deletions.

Don’t take the bait.

Also, notice the questionable response to this in #41. The word “you” should never appear in the News Forums unless an article is being quoted.

I’m not here to get a rise out of anyone. While this isn’t a political forum, I recognize there are posters here from across the political spectrum. There are many posts that I disagree with. However, as this is a Catholic forum, I believe the forum members are being sincere in their comments, and I will not assign less-than-noble intentions to those I disagree with.

 

[ServusHumilis]

Oh my. You really don’t want the Church as a single legal entity.

Well She kind of is already. She isn’t going to be told what to do by some heathenous secular court when the notions of right and wrong have came from Her to begin with.

 

[otjm]

So stupid. There shouldn’t even be any sort of contract other than “You don’t follow Catholic teaching, you don’t get to work for the Church.” Quite simple. No secular court should nor in my opinion even does have the authority to impose any such sanctions on the Church. The Church should never have to be put in such a position. I can foresee the legal problems coming up in the future. It ain’t good. :nope: It’s too bad Catholic schools and churches aren’t extraterritorial properties of the Vatican so such issues would never be a worry. Not exactly a realistic thought though it would sure make things easier when such nonsensical issues like this come up.

Well, I don’t mean to be unkind, but your opinion and $1.65 will probably get you somewhere on the local transit system.

The Church is a legal entity in the United States, and it has to comply with the laws of the land just as every other legal entity does. And your solution would just put the matter into court under the aegis of an entity from a foreign government, which does not provide immunity.

This matter is not non-sensical. It makes a tremendous amount of sense. The Church contracted with a number of individuals to teach school; frankly, if the Church were not to give me, as a teacher, a contract, I would not darken their door - and neither would anyone else with enough sense to come in out of the rain. Contracts spell out the obligations and fights of both parties.

It appears that the Church, through its employees, may have erred seriously. If they did, then they will have to take the results from their mistake, and hopefully, learn from it.

 

[otjm]

Hossana-Tabor was decided by the Supreme Court. No appellate court can overturn a Supreme Court decision.

You missed the context. Tis is a trial court case. I was not referencing the Supreme Court decision. I was referencing the trial court, and what the judge decided.

 

[otjm]

Very succinctly and well stated.

Actually, not. Their private lives are not private; and that is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by this case.

the Church has a right to require certain behavior which may impact the students. and this is an issue which specifically may impact them. No one is holding a gun to her head demanding she teach. She entered into the contract supposedly with full knowledge of what it required on her part.

Had she kept the matter truly private, and no one - other teachers, students, parents of students, parishioners, and anyone else remotely connected to the School from knowing that she was using IVF, there would be no harm to the students; no law suit, and no issue,.

It is absolutely clear she did not keep the matter private, and that is how everyone ended up in the current situation.

 

[otjm]

Because it’s a liberal cause and a slap in the face of the Catholic Church, I’m sure.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. It appears that the Church may have, through their employees, made a mess of the case for the Church, and the results are the verdict.

The Church is well within its rights to say what the working conditions are. Failure to enforce those conditions equally, will subject the Church to a lawsuit over unequal treatment.

Failure to adequately and effectively enforce a clause in a contract will be seen as a waiver of the clause.

It appears that one or both of those may have had something to do with the results.

 

[otjm]

How can you possibly approve of this atrocious decision?

without knowing the facts of the case sufficiently to form an opinion, it is not possible to say whether or not this decision is atrocious.

Contract law is a complex subject, and those who enter into contracts are presumed to have at least some understanding of the law. That includes both parties.

There are several facts which stand out. 1) the teacher did not appear to understand that IVF is considered by he Church to be very immoral, somewhat akin to the immorality of abortion. She may not have understood it, but it is not like the matter has been hidden under the proverbial bushel basket. It certainly has been treated by Our Sunday Visitor, a publication which is easily available, and often in the literature area of a parish.

Whether that would need to be more clearly defined in the contract is beyond the scope of this thread, but that certainly is a possibility.

1. It appears that this may have been the second instance she used IVF, and it may be that some individuals knew of the first instance. The school may not have taken action on the first instance, which gets into questions of waiver.
2. it appears that some male individuals - possibly teachers, went to a strip bar and were sanctioned by the proverbial “slap on the wrist”. Whether that is the equivalent in terms of sanctions is a matter that the jury could consider, if she was alleging unequal treatment; and if so, it is entirely possible the whole case hung on that issue.
3. Related to 3) is the possibility that the Church did not have a clear process set out concerning termination. Many employment contracts will set out a process with varying steps depending on the matter being treated, and what happens with multiple matters. In other words, there may be matters (which need to be clearly defined) which would result in immediate termination; others which might result in removal from the job with termination after a hearing; others which might lead to some form of disciplinary action with a period set, such that any further contractual wrongdoings would lead to dismissal; and there can be variations on the above.

Any one of these could be mistakes the Church made in handling the matters, which in turn lead to the decision. And if so, they are serious mistakes in HR on the Church’s part and not excusable. Both sides have duties. If the teacher errs, and then the Church errs, when the dust settles, the Church is going to be held liable.

The cases we tend to hear about are those in which a large judgment is awarded; we don’t hear much about the ones which the plaintiff loses. That doe not mean that plaintiffs do not lose; only that we don’t pay any attention to them.

 

[otjm]

Well She kind of is already. She isn’t going to be told what to do by some heathenous secular court when the notions of right and wrong have came from Her to begin with.

There is no particular reason to presume that the court is heathenous. Lacking sufficient information on the facts of the case, and the legal reasoning of the decision, it is impossible to say whether or not this was a fair and reasoned decision, or a wrong one.

While I may personally feel that judgments in general tend to be too high, there are a number of comments indicating that the Church may have created its own problems. Furthermore, the Church has no options; the arena is fairly well set out. It therefore needs the wisdom of competent attorneys when it enters into contractual relations, and needs to explain to those who are the “first line of defense” what will create liability for the Church, should they make the wrong choices in handling disciplinary actions.

 

[ServusHumilis]

Well, I don’t mean to be unkind, but your opinion and $1.65 will probably get you somewhere on the local transit system.

The Church is a legal entity in the United States, and it has to comply with the laws of the land just as every other legal entity does. And your solution would just put the matter into court under the aegis of an entity from a foreign government, which does not provide immunity.

This matter is not non-sensical. It makes a tremendous amount of sense. The Church contracted with a number of individuals to teach school; frankly, if the Church were not to give me, as a teacher, a contract, I would not darken their door - and neither would anyone else with enough sense to come in out of the rain. Contracts spell out the obligations and fights of both parties.

It appears that the Church, through its employees, may have erred seriously. If they did, then they will have to take the results from their mistake, and hopefully, learn from it.

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.

There is no particular reason to presume that the court is heathenous. Lacking sufficient information on the facts of the case, and the legal reasoning of the decision, it is impossible to say whether or not this was a fair and reasoned decision, or a wrong one.

While I may personally feel that judgments in general tend to be too high, there are a number of comments indicating that the Church may have created its own problems. Furthermore, the Church has no options; the arena is fairly well set out. It therefore needs the wisdom of competent attorneys when it enters into contractual relations, and needs to explain to those who are the “first line of defense” what will create liability for the Church, should they make the wrong choices in handling disciplinary actions.

Are you kidding me? Have you need 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 even some priests and, Lord forgive me, some bishops and even cardinals aren’t the most competent it’s no surprise the Church can’t find decent attorneys to defend Her position.

 

[ServusHumilis]

Well, I don’t mean to be unkind, but your opinion and $1.65 will probably get you somewhere on the local transit system.

The Church is a legal entity in the United States, and it has to comply with the laws of the land just as every other legal entity does. And your solution would just put the matter into court under the aegis of an entity from a foreign government, which does not provide immunity.

This matter is not non-sensical. It makes a tremendous amount of sense. The Church contracted with a number of individuals to teach school; frankly, if the Church were not to give me, as a teacher, a contract, I would not darken their door - and neither would anyone else with enough sense to come in out of the rain. Contracts spell out the obligations and fights of both parties.

It appears that the Church, through its employees, may have erred seriously. If they did, then they will have to take the results from their mistake, and hopefully, learn from it.

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.

There is no particular reason to presume that the court is heathenous. Lacking sufficient information on the facts of the case, and the legal reasoning of the decision, it is impossible to say whether or not this was a fair and reasoned decision, or a wrong one.

While I may personally feel that judgments in general tend to be too high, there are a number of comments indicating that the Church may have created its own problems. Furthermore, the Church has no options; the arena is fairly well set out. It therefore needs the wisdom of competent attorneys when it enters into contractual relations, and needs to explain to those who are the “first line of defense” what will create liability for the Church, should they make the wrong choices in handling disciplinary actions.

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.