Catholic School Sued for Firing Pregnant Teacher

**Redleg** · 11-23-2005, 04:07

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.

**Red Harvest** · 11-23-2005, 04:39

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.

**Redleg** · 11-23-2005, 04:48

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.