Unmarried Catholic school teacher, fired after pregnancy, will pursue legal action [CC]
- Status
C
Coatimundi
Guest
Although the diocese and school district deserve to be commended for upholding Church teaching, I think they may be fighting a lost battle. They will probably be faulted for violating anti-discrimination protections
Quoting from the website of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, such as leave and health insurance, and any other term or condition of employment.
eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm
The actual wording of the law can be read here:
eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm
The news article makes reference to a similar case involving the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. The archdiocese had been very careful to make clear that the teacher was not fired for being pregnant while unmarried. Their case was that she was fired for using in-vitro fertilization. But the jury sided with the woman and levied a hefty financial judgment against the archdiocese.
Quoting from the website of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, such as leave and health insurance, and any other term or condition of employment.
eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm
The actual wording of the law can be read here:
eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm
The news article makes reference to a similar case involving the Archdiocese of Cincinnati. The archdiocese had been very careful to make clear that the teacher was not fired for being pregnant while unmarried. Their case was that she was fired for using in-vitro fertilization. But the jury sided with the woman and levied a hefty financial judgment against the archdiocese.
Suudy
Active member
And here, I think, they can use the argument that she was fired for having sex outside of the bonds of matrimony. If people can be fired for adultery, why not for fornication? And there’s no more conclusive proof that fornication occurred than being pregnant when unmarried.
L
Lochias
Guest
If they side with the woman, then it sets the legal precedent that signed contracts mean absolutely nothing. One step closer to pure, unadulterated insanity in the US if that happens.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
It would also set the precedent that homosexual staff members who get married while employed by a Catholic school could not be fired. It would indeed be a very dangerous precedent. There are contract clauses that cannot be enforced, but not being able to enforce this one, would completely invalidate religious freedom and defeat the purpose of religious schools.
H
Holly3278
Guest
She should have thought about this before she fornicated.
P
pollynova
Guest
Good for her for choosing life instead of murdering the baby.
Bad on the school for firing her.
Bad on the school for firing her.
L
Lochias
Guest
Or, y’know, bad on her for not controlling herself in the first place. Or, even barring that, bad on her for thinking that the contract she signed means absolutely squat.
I’m glad she chose life, too, but that doesn’t make what she’s doing now not wrong.
P
pollynova
Guest
I wonder how many other teachers at that school should be fired for not living a “catholic lifestyle?” But, lucky for them, they get to hide their sins. This woman does the right thing after doing the wrong thing and she loses her job and her income.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
It is unfortunate, but most Catholic schools don’t have the money to move teachers who don’t uphold the morality clauses on their contracts to administrative roles, while such evidence of their conduct exists and then hire another teacher in their place. The point is, if the school/church cannot uphold its morality clause in this case, then it won’t be able to do so with a homosexual teacher/staff member getting “married” to their partner, or a divorced Catholic teacher getting remarried outside the church, or any of the public sins which cause scandal with the children. One need only to look at the case of the vice principle in the northwest to see how such things turn out, when teachers and staff don’t honor their contracts. (Students end up encouraging the sin).
L
Lochias
Guest
So you don’t believe that we should have to face the consequences of our actions?
C
CanMan86
Guest
I wonder how much her parish priest preached on why premarital sex is wrong??
C
CanMan86
Guest
I’m curious, could she have kept her job if she admitted what she did was wrong and gone to confession about it?
J
JimG
Guest
That would not be the issue. Could a teacher who had sex with a student, or several students, keep her job, if admitting wrongdoing and going to confession? Or a teacher who molested students? Probably not. The fact is, the terms of a contract were violated.
B
BellsMom
Guest
Imagine a world where it was common place to have employees sign these contracts. Get pregnant out of wed lock, loose your job.
Not very “pro-life”.
Not very “pro-life”.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
That is not what the contract says. The contract says that the person will live according to the Catholic Church’s moral teachings. Many companies (and the government) have morality clauses, or at least conduct clauses in employment contracts. Better not gossip about your company or boss on social media,lose your job; better not solicit prostitutes, even in a country where it is legal; lose your job; sleep with a co-worker lose your job. It is just their morals are often different than the Churches.
P
pollynova
Guest
She’s having a child. That’s a pretty big consequence.
This will not stop other teachers (or students) from having sex. All it will do is drive them to birth control and abortion.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
Today, the main reason for abortion is convenience. It looks like this school is trying to take us back to the “good old days” when the main reason for abortion was shame.
S
sousley
Guest
A child is a blessing, not a consequence.
Your argument is resting on the notion that one sin can be justified by pointing to other sins.
“This will not stop other teachers (or students) from having sex” — sin
“All it will do is drive them to birth control” — sin
“and abortion.” — sin
These sins cannot be used to validate any other sin. If two wrongs don’t make a right, then neither do three…four… or twelve.
P
pollynova
Guest
Is it a sin to let a pregnant woman keep her job? Does the school have some sort of moral obligation to fire anyone that has premarital sex?
- Status