Printable View
No, I'm not going to share the details, but I have a particular incident in mind that involved someone close. Let's just say that the rapist was protected by the catholic institution, while she took the brunt of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The current incident actually brought the other to my mind instantly.
So? You're still making a hasty generalization- taking 1 example and trying to apply it to all other cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
ie: I heard about a Catholic school that did something bad once. Therefore, whenever a scandal arises, Catholic schools have always done something bad.
I have no doubt that I've attended and worked in more Catholic schools than you've heard about from friends.
Why am I not surprised? ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
And my reaction isn't kneejerk. I don't always assume the school is at fault. That was your assumption.
Ah, you only assumed the school was in the wrong in this case then based on your one previous example. I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
You can deny it- but that's exactly what you said.
Quote:
Sorry, but I doubt it, I've seen how some of these Catholic schools work through my friends' perspectives...particularly one involving a rape.
Not nessissarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
If we were talking about a public school, then you would be right, however, since we are talking of a Catholic school, they are entitled to enforce a stricter code of conduct on their staff and students than a federal school would.
As far as I can tell, they terminated her for violating this code of strict moral conducts, that she (most likely) was aware of when she accepted the Job. It is therefore the schools right to take the action as they did.
And don't bring in the equal oppertunity crap, seperation of Church and State. The State has no place in religion, and if they force the school to overturn it's verdict it is the next blow in a long line of assaults against religion by the Federal Government. Very Stalinistic, huh?
First forcing the Episcipal church to allow a Lesbian to become Bishop, then an Athiest, and now this. I always beleived the constitution garenteed freedom of religion, not freedom from/state controlled religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
Sorry Kaiser - as a member of the church in question - the church was not forced to make a homosexual priest as a Bishop - the church did it on its own accord.
Now that's really pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I know the athiest part to be true, it's local ~:)
Isn't an Atheist bishop something of an oxymoron? ~:confused:
No, it is what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Catholic entities have a real weak spot with regards to sexual misconduct and covering it up anyway. I didn't go the gratuitous route that would have presented, I was more focused on something that hit closer to home.
I look forward to hearing how this one plays out in the long run.
If the school knew what it was doing when it hired her she will lose. You have the right to contract away your legal rights. If her contract provided that the school had discretion to fire her if it found that she violated a tenet of the Catholic faith then she's out of luck and she'll lose on a motion for summary judgment.
That's not true at all, the school will most likely lose because it will be unable to prove it was acting in an equitable manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhepee
Seems more likely to me as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
In civil cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. So the school doesnt have to prove it was equitable- the teacher's attorneys will have to prove the school was being inequitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
Quote:
Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
I think you missed Dhepee's point.
However in this case the ACLU will have to also show that the school did not act in an equitable manner. Its not a simple law - nor is it an easy one to prove in court. Alot will depend on the court that handles the matter.
As Dhepee correctly stated if the school understood the rules in regards to this area of civil law - they will win. The equitable manner is actually easy to prove if they have the paper trail to back up their labor contracts with the teachers.
The ACLU will have to show that a male teacher did similiar conduct that the school adminstration was aware of - and did not act upon that information with at least a formal human resourses investigation into the issue. Having set on one race and one sex related equality issues in the last five years - the proof or lack thereof is in the paper trail.
The interesting part will be how the Catholic Church response - will they allow the School to handle this issue on its own - as a private matter between the school and the individual, or will the Church as an enity step into the situation and advice the school to settle or fight in the court.
Lack of a paper trail can also be used to prove the case. You need some documentation to illustrate that you have followed your own policies. As a hypothetical: if for instance the female staff is punished at a much higher rate, and the male staff is not, that can bite them in the butt too. The devil is in the details of their policy and enforcement. If they have been uneven in their enforcement, then they are going to have a real problem with this one. Yes, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but the burden is not like a criminal trial either. Firing someone because they are becoming a mother is not likely to play well with your average juror either.
A summary judgement seems unlikely unless the ACLU has nothing on which to base its case. I doubt that.
I watched a former employer run off a mid manager for a valid business cause, but based on personal issues that were the core of the problem. They tried to manufacture a technical cause after the fact based on procedure, but it was really flimsy. There wasn't a person in town or at work who believed the stated cause--and they also knew that the standard used would expose a lot of other managers to scrutiny. After a short negotiation the company did the smart thing and paid the fellow off to leave them alone.
This same employer had a good record of getting rid of others for cause. The nuisance suits didn't work, including sexual and racial discrimination/harrassment suits. It was all about having records and sticking to the process.
That is exactly what I stated - without a paper trail its easier for the plaintaff to prove their case,Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
That would indeed provide proof toward the plaintaff's case.Quote:
You need some documentation to illustrate that you have followed your own policies. As a hypothetical: if for instance the female staff is punished at a much higher rate, and the male staff is not, that can bite them in the butt too.
However the school doesn't need everyone on their side - the lawyers will have to sort out the jury pool as best they can.Quote:
The devil is in the details of their policy and enforcement. If they have been uneven in their enforcement, then they are going to have a real problem with this one. Yes, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but the burden is not like a criminal trial either. Firing someone because they are becoming a mother is not likely to play well with your average juror either.
I will bet the school applies for a summary judgement though.Quote:
A summary judgement seems unlikely unless the ACLU has nothing on which to base its case. I doubt that.
I image the school if it does not get a summary judgement will settle out of court.Quote:
I watched a former employer run off a mid manager for a valid business cause, but based on personal issues that were the core of the problem. They tried to manufacture a technical cause after the fact based on procedure, but it was really flimsy. There wasn't a person in town or at work who believed the stated cause--and they also knew that the standard used would expose a lot of other managers to scrutiny. After a short negotiation the company did the smart thing and paid the fellow off to leave them alone.
Yep all information that is not in the news article. However the one damning thing for the plaintaff is that she does have a labor contract that looks like it spells out behavior standards.Quote:
This same employer had a good record of getting rid of others for cause. The nuisance suits didn't work, including sexual and racial discrimination/harrassment suits. It was all about having records and sticking to the process.
southeren baptists dont let these sodomites near our good christian bodies:knight:
To an extent - if the contract contained a provision which explicitly allowed for her employment to be terminated should she become pregnant (married or not), and the local Equal Opportunity legislation prohibited the sacking of individuals on the grounds that they are pregnant (fairly standard stuff really) then that particular provision may fall victim to the doctrine of illegality, in which case the school may be in trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dhepee
If the provision is more ambiguous, eg. The teachers must uphold a code of ethics of some sort, then it’s not as clear cut, on the one hand it promotes illegal activity, on the other it does not expressly give rise to that illegal activity.
Of course, equity could stick it’s fingers in along the line, and being the strange beast it is, make a whole mess of the place.
So essentially, you can contract away your legal rights as long as doing so does not somehow taint the agreement (illegality is probably the most common one here, as it deals with the nature of the contract rather then the happens during it's formation).
Being that it is a church school, I suspect its enforcment of policies will be much less formal and in ways more flexible than a public entity that has to regularly contend with controversies from all quarters. Afterall, the whole idea is of creating an environment where everyone on staff thinks/behaves in approximately the same manner (loosely speaking.) I could go for quite a while on this, but I'll summarize by calling it is an atmosphere issue. I expect that serious blindspots will be revealed.
It is also reasonable as a guess that they may have relied too heavily on whatever code of conduct they've got in the contract. That is where I see the vulnerability: assuming that it will protect them from other mistakes like the typical "at will" types like to believe ("at will" is not "carte blanche".)
All guesswork without details, but the ACLU smells something in this one.
Why was firing the only option? That is what I would want to know as a juror (or judge.) I at least need to see something that explains why firing was the appropriate solution, and that it is the normal way they handle such matters (assuming this is the 1st documented offense, or 2nd, etc.) If the defense does that, then they've removed a major part of the inequality argument in my mind. If they can't...then the plaintiff has much improved chances.
Afterall, what real GOOD has this action served? Did it help the woman or school to fire her for becoming pregnant? Will it help the child? It isn't very Christian if you ask me, but I'm not Catholic.
Presuming they use a 'tiered" system...if so, and she can demonstrate inconsistency, she would have a case. Prior issues do, of course, matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
With rare exceptions, gravid women are obviously so, while a male may father children without acquiring any visible proof of having done so. However, if she bases her argument on "a man could have done this without being detected as going against the morals clause, so I should be able to go against that clause as well" it won't hold water. Ends up being an argument for "bad" behavior because others are also being "bad." [/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Possibly, I suspect it would vary with the school. However, a licensed teacher who has committed no crime and cannot be shown to have been terminated for poor performance or posing a threat to children should be employable in the secular system if not in another private school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Well, a guy I know was fired for e-mailing one of his students some soft-core porn (not of himself). Close enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
So what kind of moron is a normal bishop then? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I was going to defend my statement about the likely outcome of the court case, but Red Harves seems to have done it for me, thanks ~:cheers:.
Sure. I am not in favour of firing all Catholics -- who in his right mind would? But if you work in a Catholic school as a role model, pray to the Catholic God, speak Catholic, sing Catholic and earn a Catholic salary, you should follow Catholic teaching. If not, that's asking for the Catholic axe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I think she should have been PROMOTED for being pregnant
have they forgotten that contraception is a sin too? Getting up the duff by mistake is conveying the teachings of the Catholic faith by her actions, with a venganceQuote:
The handbook says that each teacher must "convey the teachings of the Catholic faith by his or her words and actions."
More seriously, if we allow that they can be church schools at all, it surely has to follow that its reasonable that the school can expect its staff to follow the teaching of the faith in question. But whether as a result it is reasonable to sack her is another matter, after all, as I recall it a key message of the christian faith is the availablity of forgiveness if you repent, (handily available on a pay as you go basis in confession for us catholics). Also, rather gloomily, I seem to recall the church is generally pessimistic about peoples' propensity to sin.
Therefore the fact that she got pregnant outside marriage, without more, does not seem to me to justify sacking her even in a catholic context. She might have confessed all and been absolved already for all the school knows. If she was walking about shouting out that she had premarital sex and it was great and she wasn't remotely sorry about it, that would be different.
And anyway, in the UK the school would be toast. Anything remotely to do with pregnancy is automatic sex discrimination and massive pay outs.
Being Catholic is all about sinning and asking and receiving forgiveness. If the Church followed your line of thought there wouldn't be any Catholic priests left !Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
On the original article: as long as they fire male teacher who has kids outside of wedlock, the school should be fine. Then it becomes a case about how far an employer can go in 'guiding' the private lives of its employers. And that's usually pretty far.
And if we followed your line there wouldn't be any Catholicism left. The history of the Church of Rome and of the wider Catholic subculture indeed have many traits of an ethical merry-go-round as you describe it, but Catholic doctrine is serious business and the Pope's Infallibility is its cornerstone.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I propose that the Board, now that it's at it, also looks into the biology teacher at their school and make sure that he teaches Darwinism properly, because that is part and parcel of Catholic doctrine these days.
Link
Thank God Joseph didn't fire Mary when he found out she was pregnant.:bow:
This is a case that I need to see more facts on before I make a firm opinion on it. Yes, she is suppose to be a moral role model and I'm sure her contract has certain policies that she had to abide by, BUT I believe the Church should show the compassion of Christ by helping this woman and providing her support. Firing her doesn't set a good example to the children either. It conveys a message, in my opinion, that she would have been better off not having the child (abortion, etc) which is against their own doctrine as well. I have to wonder if she was a priest and got busted molesting a young child if she/he would have simply been moved to another location, like it has been done in the past. Jesus went to those who were considered the lowest of the low but he held them in the same regard as kings and queens. Why couldn't they have just moved her till after the birth? Why not give her the opportunity to ask for forgiveness? Again, i don't think we are getting the whole story.
This has very little to do with Catholic doctrine I'm afraid, the infallibility of the Pope is not in question, the existence of saints isn't denied, nobody is arguing whether we go straight to heaven or whether we stay dead until the end of times and then get re-made, no one is questioning the virgin birth etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
This is not an issue related to doctrine, at most to tradition. That said, she did sin, and should thus seek forgiveness, and it would have been nice of the school if they just gave her a desk job (or unpaid vacation) until she has had the baby, firing her seems a bit harsh in this day and age.
Are these religious schools publicly funded, or are they private schools?