Catholic School Sued for Firing Pregnant Teacher

[doc_bean]

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.

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...)

[Adrian II]

Incompatible language

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

[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.

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

[Xiahou]

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.

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

Me too.

[Red Harvest]

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.

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

That is often not the case with church schools.

[Redleg]

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.

[Sjakihata]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[English assassin]

I think she should have been PROMOTED for being pregnant

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.

[Goofball]

Getting up the duff by mistake

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

[Red Harvest]

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

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.

[doc_bean]

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.

[Adrian II]

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

[Devastatin Dave]

Thank God Joseph didn't fire Mary when he found out she was pregnant.

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.

[doc_bean]

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.