Catholic School Sued for Firing Pregnant Teacher

A catholic school has fired a teacher for becoming pregnant. She is suing. Seems just wrong to me to fire her for this. If you do this, then you would have to fire for every single infraction that students can detect from their teachers. Talk about a Pandora's box.

Then there is the inequality aspect. A male teacher could impregnate dozens of women and still not run afoul of this sort of problem, because he would not be carrying the evidence with him to class.

Poor judgement by the school. They didn't have to condone her conduct, but terminating her is just wrong. I doubt Jesus would approve of their conduct.

EDIT: Ironically, she could have had an abortion without their knowledge to avoid losing her job.

From CNN:

Quote:

---

NEW YORK (AP) -- The New York Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal discrimination complaint against a Catholic school, charging that it unjustly fired an unmarried teacher for being pregnant.

"I don't understand how a religion that prides itself on forgiving and on valuing life could terminate me because I'm pregnant and choosing to have this baby," Michelle McCusker said Monday at a news conference to announce the suit.

The 26-year-old preschool teacher was fired last month from St. Rose of Lima in Queens, according to published reports.

The Diocese of Brooklyn also was named in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint.

"This is a difficult situation for every person involved, but the school had no choice but to follow the principles contained in the teachers' personnel handbook," diocese spokesman Frank DeRosa said in a news release.

The handbook says that each teacher must "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions."

Lawyers at the NYCLU, which filed the suit on McCusker's behalf, argued that administrators enforced the policy in a way that disproportionately affects women.

"The school used her pregnancy as a marker," attorney Cassandra Stubbs said. "How do they determine if male employees engage in premarital sex?"

It's not the first time the NYCLU has argued such a case. In 2003, the unmarried director of an after-school program run by a Catholic charity in Buffalo was demoted when she became pregnant. The equal employment commission found that the charity had violated federal anti-discrimination laws, the NYCLU said.

That charity agreed to ban discrimination based on marital status or pregnancy.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/pr....ap/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

A catholic school has fired a teacher for becoming pregnant.

---

Serves her right for being Catholic.

Just out curisoty, what should they have done? Cut her pay? wouldn't that be Discrimination as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Serves her right for being Catholic.

---

damn right~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

Just out curisoty, what should they have done? Cut her pay? wouldn't that be Discrimination as well?

---

How about neither? She wasn't having premarital sex in front of the students. Nor was she saying it was OK as far as I can tell. It is a private matter and should have been left as such.

She was teaching pre-school for crying out loud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

It is a private matter and should have been left as such.

---

God sees everything. :stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

God sees everything. :stare:

---

He should be arrested for a whole host of things in that case.

Red harvest

Fair enough. But if the teacher is a member of a religious school, then she should be required to act consistently with the beliefs of the religion.

Which raises the question as to whether there should be such schools in the first place, since it isn't really possible to comply with the Discrimination laws and laws of the religion as far as i know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

Red harvest

Fair enough. But if the teacher is a member of a religious school, then she should be required to act consistently with the beliefs of the religion.

Which raises the question if there should be such schools in the first place, since it isn't really possible to comply with the Discrimination laws and laws of the religion as far as i know...

---

Yes, that is a problem. Religion is often at odds with anti-discrimination statutes.

If you are going to apply the axe for what could easily be a *single* transgression of their rules applying to what you do outside of the work envirnment, then are you going to apply it equally to all transgressions by other faculty. A teacher pinches his or her extremity in a door/drops a book on his/her toe and utters something less than exemplary. Do they get canned? A teacher tells a "white lie" and gets caught in it. Do they get canned? The number of permutations is endless...and these must be applied to both work and non-work situations. Your whole workforce will be terminated the first week of school.

Quote:

---

The handbook says that each teacher must "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions."

---

Premartial sex is a pretty big action that is not in line with what the Catholic faith teaches.

Teachers are supposed to lead by example at schools. At religious schools you have to act within the bounds of that faith. She is being a hypocrite as well if she tells others to follow a faith and then blatantly acts outside it.

So she broke the rules of her faith and as such she is paying the price.

The school should be allowed to set standards, and so what if those standards and expectations are higher then the norm? That is what schools are for, bringing people up not down.

Economic forces will change who the school will employ as it finds out that there is a shortage of virgins or spinsters willing to teach.

Quote:

---

The handbook says that each teacher must "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions."

---

I wonder how many other teachers and staff have gone against this quote and not gotten fired. Where do they draw the line? Apparently at pregnant preschool teachers, how friggin lame. :angry:

Stuff like that happened a lot in Catholic schools here back in the day, we've moved passed that though, sad to see they haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Serves her right for being Catholic.

---

Incompatible language

please respect the forum rules - Ser Clegane

(Okay, I oppose pretty much anything the church stands for and consider myself agnostic, but still...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Incompatible language

---

Don't worry, I am being quite well looked after. ~D

Quote:

---

Teachers are supposed to lead by example at schools.

---

Yeah, the school is also leading by example. Forgiving the sinner and that stuff...
They could have make her tell her students that pre-martial sex is bad. And then elaborate on how it feels to be pregnant. Might have worked wonders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Yeah, the school is also leading by example. Forgiving the sinner and that stuff...
They could have make her tell her students that pre-martial sex is bad. And then elaborate on how it feels to be pregnant. Might have worked wonders.

---

Yes, that is about the farthest they could have taken it. But it doesn't make sense for her to tell her pre-schoolers that. Imagine the questions for Mom and Dad that would follow? "Mommy, what is sex?" ~:eek:

It was in her contract, so they had the right to terminate.

Her case only flies if they can produce examples of that same institution/leasdership cadre knowing of other "morals" transgressions and not taking an equivalent action.

If the woman is a qualified teacher, she will have no trouble getting work. Moreover, I assume that the school would provide a positive reference for her teaching skills if warranted. While a Catholic school may feel this is a poor example for their students, any number of secular facilities would consider it irrelevant.

AdrianII -- I'll assume the Catholic-bashing was in jest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

EDIT: Ironically, she could have had an abortion without their knowledge to avoid losing her job.

---

That is ironical. Anyway they shouldn't have fired her just for being pregnant.
Oh and is she married? I think that it wouldn't happen if she were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I wonder how many other teachers and staff have gone against this quote and not gotten fired. Where do they draw the line? Apparently at pregnant preschool teachers, how friggin lame. :angry:

---

Yes, it is a Pandora's box. There is no way they are going to be able to prove they had some measurable standard that was being applied equitably. They are dead meat in court because it will be child's play to prove this is being applied inequitably, particularly against women. That is sexual discrimination and won't be protected. It is a lawyer's wet dream.

There are a whole host of problems with what they have done. Yes, she violated the policy, but applying the policy in this case will unfairly discriminate against women. Do they normally terminate for a first offense? Did she try to work with them? They are toast.

Sometimes it helps to consider possibilities "behind the scenes." I have been in a situation that--while quite unlike this in specifics--caused me to wonder about this situation. When people in an administration of any kind don't get along, cliques form and each looks for opportunities to take the other to task. By getting pregnant as a teacher in a Catholic school, this woman opened the door for her "enemies" there. If they were powerful administrators--or those who could influence those with the power to hire and fire--then she might have been the victim of their opportunity to be rid of a rival. I've been in this situation myself (just not as a pregnant teacher in a Catholic school, obviously).

What I'm saying is: the actual motive for firing her might be something that really has nothing to do with her being pregnant out of wedlock in a Catholic school. It could very well be nasty politics, as usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Premartial sex is a pretty big action that is not in line with what the Catholic faith teaches.

---

She could have been raped. Is that not in line with Catholicism? She made the Catholic decision to keep the child anyway. Brownie points for that, you'd think.

And Red, a man could impregnate a dozen women, yes, but by this logic, once a student found out that he was lecher, they'd fire him too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

It was in her contract, so they had the right to terminate.

Her case only flies if they can produce examples of that same institution/leasdership cadre knowing of other "morals" transgressions and not taking an equivalent action.

If the woman is a qualified teacher, she will have no trouble getting work. Moreover, I assume that the school would provide a positive reference for her teaching skills if warranted. While a Catholic school may feel this is a poor example for their students, any number of secular facilities would consider it irrelevant.

---

At least some people get it. She is supposed to be an example of moral character, in addition to being just a teacher. When I was in HS, I remember a teacher that was well liked by students, getting fired for being divorced and then re-marrying. Some students were upset about it, but that was as far as it went.

I hope this woman's case is thrown out.

Quote:

---

AdrianII -- I'll assume the Catholic-bashing was in jest.

---

Me too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeonGod

And Red, a man could impregnate a dozen women, yes, but by this logic, once a student found out that he was lecher, they'd fire him too.

---

Sorry, but I doubt it, I've seen how some of these Catholic schools work through my friends' perspectives...particularly one involving a rape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Serves her right for being Catholic.

---

WHAT mods this is pathetic! If I said the same thing about a black guy or muslim, I would be getting a warning very quick. Your attitude makes me sick adrian.

howdo u know he wasn't warned? unlike other posters, some just take their lumps without making a fuss (or thread) about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

WHAT mods this is pathetic! If I said the same thing about a black guy or muslim, I would be getting a warning very quick. Your attitude makes me sick adrian.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

It was in her contract, so they had the right to terminate.

Her case only flies if they can produce examples of that same institution/leasdership cadre knowing of other "morals" transgressions and not taking an equivalent action.

---

Not necessarily. They are going to have to demonstrate that they use some sort of tiered system and that her firing was appropriate within the system. If she can demonstrate inconsistency they are going to lose. There is behind the scenes stuff to consider--do they have progressive discipline or is there typical method termination on the first offense? Did she have prior problems?

And they are going to have a real problem on this because of the gender differences. It is easy to see that a female has been impregnated, but difficult to see that a male has done so. It's also not illegal for her to become pregnant.

Quote:

---

If the woman is a qualified teacher, she will have no trouble getting work.

---

That is often not the case with church schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

howdo u know he wasn't warned? unlike other posters, some just take their lumps without making a fuss (or thread) about it.

---

I always assumed a warned post was edited. Am I wrong?(if it violates the rules why is it still there?) And how am I suposed to know if he is warned or not? People not knowing what's going on may be why many people think there is a double standard here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Serves her right for being Catholic.

---

Agreed. The thing that all servant of God that apreciates himself had to do, descriminate the sinner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

I always assumed a warned post was edited. Am I wrong?(if it violates the rules why is it still there?) And how am I suposed to know if he is warned or not? People not knowing what's going on may be why many people think there is a double standard here.

---

What about the post makes it offensive and warranting of forced editing by the moderators? It does not contain offensive language, its not a degrading comment, it is not directed at any one individual at the .org. It just something that could be taken as a bash if one wants to view it that way.

For instance she is being fired because she works at a Catholic School, signed a contract, I assume she is Catholic because of that contract that she signed - and she got fired because her actions were inconsistent with the tenats of her faith - and violated the conditions of the contract that she signed.

Hince Adrian's comment while a bash - was not that far off of the mark concerning what is happening to this teacher who got pregnant while unmarried working for a Catholic School.

Not a comment that constitutes a forced edit - and remember I am one to quickly slam on athesits and those who attack religion without reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Sorry, but I doubt it, I've seen how some of these Catholic schools work through my friends' perspectives...particularly one involving a rape.

---

Oh please- that's a hasty generalization if I've ever read one. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

And they are going to have a real problem on this because of the gender differences. It is easy to see that a female has been impregnated, but difficult to see that a male has done so. It's also not illegal for her to become pregnant.

---

Nor is it illegal to fire someone. Heard of 'at will' employment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Not necessarily. They are going to have to demonstrate that they use some sort of tiered system and that her firing was appropriate within the system. If she can demonstrate inconsistency they are going to lose. There is behind the scenes stuff to consider--do they have progressive discipline or is there typical method termination on the first offense? Did she have prior problems?

And they are going to have a real problem on this because of the gender differences. It is easy to see that a female has been impregnated, but difficult to see that a male has done so. It's also not illegal for her to become pregnant.

That is often not the case with church schools.

---

The problem the ACLU is going to have is this - if the school does not take public money in any way shape or form.

All the school has to show is that they are consistent with this type of discpline for this time of offense. Is it baised upon the sex of the individual - yes - but for it to be an unlawful termination they will have to prove that the school is not consistent with the aspects of this type of violation.

For instance they will have to bring several males who completely violate the tenats of the school - and get away with it. If they can prove this - then their suit will have grounds - if not it will be dismissed in my opinion.