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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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

---

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.

The current incident actually brought the other to my mind instantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So? You're still making a hasty generalization- taking 1 example and trying to apply it to all other cases.

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:

And my reaction isn't kneejerk. I don't always assume the school is at fault. That was your assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Why am I not surprised? ~:rolleyes:

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.

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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.

---

Not nessissarily.

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

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

I know the athiest part to be true, it's local ~:)

Isn't an Atheist bishop something of an oxymoron? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Ah, you only assumed the school was in the wrong in this case then based on your one previous example. I see.

You can deny it- but that's exactly what you said.

---

No, it is what you said.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhepee

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 QwertyMIDX

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.

---

Seems more likely to me as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Lack of a paper trail can also be used to prove the case.

---

That is exactly what I stated - without a paper trail its easier for the plaintaff to prove their 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.

---

That would indeed provide proof toward the plaintaff's case.

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.

---

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:

---

A summary judgement seems unlikely unless the ACLU has nothing on which to base its case. I doubt that.

---

I will bet the school applies for a summary judgement though.

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.

---

I image the school if it does not get a summary judgement will settle out of court.

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.

---

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.

southeren baptists dont let these sodomites near our good christian bodies:knight:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhepee

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.

---

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.
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.

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?

---

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

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.

---

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

That is often not the case with church schools.

---

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

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

---

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 Xiahou

Isn't an Atheist bishop something of an oxymoron? ~:confused:

---

So what kind of moron is a normal bishop then? ~;)

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:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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

---

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.

I think she should have been PROMOTED for being pregnant

Quote:

---

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

---

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 vengance

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

---

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 !

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

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!

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

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

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

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.

---

So according to Catholic doctrine, if the woman atones for her sin she must be reinstated as a teacher?

That is good news indeed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Getting up the duff by mistake

---

Not to be mistaken with "getting it up the duff by mistake..."

~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Not to be mistaken with "getting it up the duff by mistake..."

~D

---

Her career would have been better off that way and the school would be happy because as long as they can't see the result, they can remain blissfully ignorant. However, she wants the baby, so you can't say that she would have been better off that way.

Gotta really wonder about the "family values" aspect of those who think it is fitting to fire a pregnant woman for becoming pregnant out of wedlock...you know: rather than job performance, disruptive behaviour at work, etc.

Interesting things about all these replies is that it shows how everybody's legal system is a little different.

In the US, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove her case. It will all come down to the wording of the contract if it says something to the effect of "If we [the school] have reason to believe that you [the teacher] have violated any of the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church [as defined at xyz] then it is within our discretion to terminate your employment"

"Reason to believe," don't have to know for a fact just need some circumstantial knowldge, i.e. her tummy is big and she told someone that she is not married or has not stated as a matter of fact that she is married. Notice that she cannot be asked if she is married, but the fact that she has not stated that she is married in a situation where it would be expected that she would say so can be used as evidence that is not in fact married; this is under the Rules of Evidence.

"Within our discretion" means that the school can evaluate her conduct and decide to terminate her or not, but it does not necessarily have to terminate all others for similar conduct. Using discretion gives the school the ability to evaluate it on a case by case basis.
She could only really prove, as a matter of law, that the school's conduct was discriminatory if a male teacher applied for health insurance for a child and not for his wife, and the school failed to put him on notice that he would be terminated if he had an out of wedlock child; in that case it would be another situation where the school can't ask the employee if he is married but by putting him on notice it creates a rebutable presumption that he isn't. This would probably win the case for her, or at least get her to settlement talks, but it would be hard to prove.

Also, I am two semesters from a bar license and I practiced last summer for a state attorney general's office, this is pretty basis US contract law. May be that there are some variations in NY state where she was hired, but I doubt it since this stuff is pretty uniform.

Cheers.

She should lose. She was fully aware when she started teaching at the school, that she signed a contract and was expected to act in manner befitting a catholic teacher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghost908

She should lose. She was fully aware when she started teaching at the school, that she signed a contract and was expected to act in manner befitting a catholic teacher.

---

Justice should be related to equity as background of all the system. That decision is not an equitable one, apart of the doctrine of the old church being discriminative, archaic and with no place in reasonable world. But of course someone could come up with the argument of freedom of believes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Justice should be related to equity as background of all the system. That decision is not an equitable one, apart of the doctrine of the old church being discriminative, archaic and with no place in reasonable world. But of course someone could come up with the argument of freedom of believes.

---

If this is just a contract dispute - then justice is served if the court rules consistent with the letter of the law.

If the school acted in accordance with its beliefs and has done so consistently with each and every teacher regardless of race or sex. As we alreadly understand each individual on the teaching staff agreed to tenats of the religion in the job contract - then justice is served if the court rules consistent with the letter of the law.

If the school did not apply the standard equally to all regardless of race or sex - then justice is served once again if the court rules in accordance with the letter of the law.

Now when asking about the ethics of the action - well shame on the school for firing her.

But as for Justice and legality - that is for the court to decide based upon the evidence presented to it by both parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Gotta really wonder about the "family values" aspect of those who think it is fitting to fire a pregnant woman for becoming pregnant out of wedlock...you know: rather than job performance, disruptive behaviour at work, etc.

---

A different point entirely than the thread started with. As Dhepee noted in the post below the one I have quoted here, she's gonna get creamed in court (in all probability) and the ACLU is doing the suit as a stunt.

The point you make above is a much more telling criticism. Though I believe they are within their contractual rights to terminate her, asking whether or not her termination would best suit the message/goals of the Catholic faith is very different -- and might well generate a different result ( I know I'd have to consider things in that light were I the one making the call). As you note, it doesn't seem to have centered on her performance as a teacher -- save by example -- and not choosing to abort and take the life of a future human is pretty important to those of us in Holy Mother church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dhepee

In the US, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove her case.

---

But in reality the 'burden of proof' is of little significance (regardless of the minor differences between our common law systems). While the plaintiff does have the burden of proving the allegations made, I would never approach a case passively, thinking that as the plaintiff wont ever be able to meet that burden, the case is good as won, nor have I ever seen a case approached like this.
So while the rhetoric has the burden on one party only, in practice the defendant has a burden to disprove the allegations made by the plaintiff, regardless of how weak those allegations are (or if you just hired the worst possible lawyer to defend you).
I have found that the standard of proof is FAR more important, and where most actions fail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dephee

It will all come down to the wording of the contract if it says something to the effect of "If we [the school] have reason to believe that you [the teacher] have violated any of the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church [as defined at xyz] then it is within our discretion to terminate your employment"

"Reason to believe," don't have to know for a fact just need some circumstantial knowldge, i.e. her tummy is big and she told someone that she is not married or has not stated as a matter of fact that she is married. Notice that she cannot be asked if she is married, but the fact that she has not stated that she is married in a situation where it would be expected that she would say so can be used as evidence that is not in fact married; this is under the Rules of Evidence.

"Within our discretion" means that the school can evaluate her conduct and decide to terminate her or not, but it does not necessarily have to terminate all others for similar conduct. Using discretion gives the school the ability to evaluate it on a case by case basis.
She could only really prove, as a matter of law, that the school's conduct was discriminatory if a male teacher applied for health insurance for a child and not for his wife, and the school failed to put him on notice that he would be terminated if he had an out of wedlock child; in that case it would be another situation where the school can't ask the employee if he is married but by putting him on notice it creates a rebutable presumption that he isn't. This would probably win the case for her, or at least get her to settlement talks, but it would be hard to prove.

---

Personally (and I am not totally familiar with the facts of the case, nor the local statutory regulations on matters of employment) I would try to render the provision/contract unenforceable rather then claim that their action was outside that which was permissible by the clause, hence my previous discussion about illegality.

Hmmm, now that I think about it, does the Parole Evidence rule apply in the US for the purposing of construing the meaning of a term? It would be hilarious if evidence as to what the tenants of the faith are were to be excluded, time to add that to the end of the contract ~;)

Equity has to do with that general ideal of justice wich comes from natural law. It's not the same as equality. For example: If I've a capitalist wich demands a real worker for stealing a piece of bread, then taking into account that the poor worker will not be able to pay the court should reduce the amount accourdingly. Another example: If someone causes a damage to the patrimony of another (by negligence should I say), at least here, he should not be forced to compensate the damaged (because the fool breaked an important pice of art) but only to return the thing in the state it's. However based on equity reasons, the court may force a compensation or redress (?) to the propietary of the thing if the differences on the patrimonies are meaningful. On the case: I think that any real work to sustain life and enjoyment is above all concept of metaphysical truth and archaic believes. Thus my statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

If this is just a contract dispute - then justice is served if the court rules consistent with the letter of the law.

---

Yes, but the letter should be interpreted, and in certain cases, such as this one in my opinion, equity has to take a place on it, and perhaps a revision of the bases of all justice system. However as I see it Common Law has no "letter of the law", it has precedents and custom, but letter is a very abstract concept don't you think?

Quote:

---

If the school acted in accordance with its beliefs and has done so consistently with each and every teacher regardless of race or sex. As we alreadly understand each individual on the teaching staff agreed to tenats of the religion in the job contract - then justice is served if the court rules consistent with the letter of the law.

---

That's truth. But perhaps again based on equity the things could end otherwise. Don't know how, but surely it would not imply retaking the employee.

Quote:

---

If the school did not apply the standard equally to all regardless of race or sex - then justice is served once again if the court rules in accordance with the letter of the law.

---

Justice is on a piramidal order, it's called the pyramid of Kelsen, though I don't know if common law has taken it into it's system. First we've the constitution (and maybe aprooved treaties). Then laws aprooved by the Congress (wich in common law should be setted precedent with force of law). In the base of the pyramid we've another kind of laws with minor importance. But finally and surounding everything we've equity. Equity should be always in sight. Now should it have an space in this case, I think yes, maybe with a juicy compensation to the fired woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

A different point entirely than the thread started with. As Dhepee noted in the post below the one I have quoted here, she's gonna get creamed in court (in all probability) and the ACLU is doing the suit as a stunt.

---

You are taking the ACLU too lightly and politically. They have defended klansmen. For them it is a matter of principle and they usually take up the fight of the underdog, even if we don't always agree with the principle they are defending (or more importantly the cause that the defense of principle would also protect--and that is usually the irritating part.) While in most instances I believe they should lose (and they do), there are a number of cases that to me are worth fighting, and they win some of them, or at least get better definition which helps everyone.

I really doubt she will get creamed. As the ACLU you don't want the publicity if you don't already see something in the contract, the school's relevant actions, etc. that gives you a way to stay in the fight. I suspect they found something.

I can tell you right now that the inequality of this is enough to sway me as a juror. There are already some serious negatives for mothers in the workforce that create serious equality issues: especially certain vesting rules. (I would love to see someone challenge them with regards to the unintended but real sexual inequality effect, as overturning them would be good for both men and women.)

Quote:

---

The point you make above is a much more telling criticism. Though I believe they are within their contractual rights to terminate her, asking whether or not her termination would best suit the message/goals of the Catholic faith is very different -- and might well generate a different result ( I know I'd have to consider things in that light were I the one making the call). As you note, it doesn't seem to have centered on her performance as a teacher -- save by example -- and not choosing to abort and take the life of a future human is pretty important to those of us in Holy Mother church.

---

On this part I agree.

I also liked another poster's comments about how the "tenets of the faith" might have to be spelled out...(depends on contract wording.) That could get really sticky...particularly with a jury that will be of mixed faiths.

Quote:

---

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.

---

No, it isn't. I think you must be confusing Catholicism with some other branches of Christianity.

"The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. "

Link for this source:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam..._Evolution.asp

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...rdship_en.html

Quote:

---

The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles....It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

---

Craftily rendering unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's, and unto God the things that are Gods.

You can make a lot of criticisms of the catholic church but they aren't stupid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

So according to Catholic doctrine, if the woman atones for her sin she must be reinstated as a teacher?

That is good news indeed!

---

The word you are looking for here is repentance as Jesus the Christ has already atoned for her sin. :stare: ... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

The word you are looking for here is repentance as Jesus the Christ has already atoned for her sin. :stare: ... ~D

---

You mean he was pregnant too? ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

You mean he was pregnant too? ~:eek:

---

I've read second-hand reports that he revived the dead, and walked on water, and that his mother self-impregnated, so it is plausible...one wonders if he would be fired by the school, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

So according to Catholic doctrine, if the woman atones for her sin she must be reinstated as a teacher?

That is good news indeed!

---

Jesus forgave worse (Mary Magdalene wasn't exactly a poster child for virtue either). And catholic doctrine is pretty strong about the forgiveness (unless you're a witch, a protestant or in any other way a heathen, then you'll burn.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I've read second-hand reports that he revived the dead, and walked on water, and that his mother self-impregnated, so it is plausible...one wonders if he would be fired by the school, too.

---

He was self-employed, of course, so he wouldn't have had to face things like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I've read second-hand reports that he revived the dead, and walked on water, and that his mother self-impregnated (..)

---

Revived the dead. Walked on water. Do I sense an agenda? ~:rolleyes:

It's illegal to fire a women employee because she is pregnant, in denmark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

You are taking the ACLU too lightly and politically. They have defended klansmen. For them it is a matter of principle and they usually take up the fight of the underdog, even if we don't always agree with the principle they are defending....

I really doubt she will get creamed. As the ACLU you don't want the publicity if you don't already see something in the contract, the school's relevant actions, etc. that gives you a way to stay in the fight. I suspect they found something.

I can tell you right now that the inequality of this is enough to sway me as a juror. There are already some serious negatives for mothers in the workforce that create serious equality issues: especially certain vesting rules. (I would love to see someone challenge them with regards to the unintended but real sexual inequality effect, as overturning them would be good for both men and women.).

---

Too lightly, possibly, but taking them too politically would be virtually impossible. They are a vehemently political group. Yes they tend to defend free speech in all cases, even the repulsive ones, and there was even some talk of them supporting Limbaugh in his records/privacy suit, but influencing the larger political agenda is central to their efforts.

That is what I label a "stunt." I think they are willing to support the effort, even in a losing cause, if it lets them bring the mothers in the workforce equality issues to the forefront. While it will probably lose in court, they're really trying to influence people even more than win a case. So I think they're willing to bring suit to make what you refer to in the 3rd quoted paragraph above more central to public discussion -- win or lose.