Catholic School Sued for Firing Pregnant Teacher

[Adrian II]

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!

[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.

[Dhepee]

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.

[Ice]

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.

[Soulforged]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[GodsPetMonkey]

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.

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

[Soulforged]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Red Harvest]

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.)

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.

[Duke of Gloucester]

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

[English assassin]

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

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

[Sigurd]

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. ...

[Adrian II]

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

You mean he was pregnant too?

[KukriKhan]

You mean he was pregnant too?

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.

[doc_bean]

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.)

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.

[Adrian II]

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?

[Sjakihata]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Soulforged]

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.)

Bah...Reports regarding Maria Magdalena are exagerated, blurred and full of propaganda of the machist catolic culture.

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

Is it illegal also if it's already stated on the contract? Well I suppose the contract will be nullified anyway.

You mean he was pregnant too?

One never knows...I mean he's Jesus right?

[Red Harvest]

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.

Then they are doing quite a valuable service to our democracy. Afterall, if the problem is that the bulk of the public are unaware of something, it is best if they bring attention to it. Not only that, but they are attempting to use the legal process to that end...rather than say...picketing a funeral.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Then they are doing quite a valuable service to our democracy. Afterall, if the problem is that the bulk of the public are unaware of something, it is best if they bring attention to it..

Well, I can't disagree with the idea of making people aware and getting them to think about issues. If the ACLU can pry them away from the latest Nick and Jessica story, that would be a public benefit.

Not only that, but they are attempting to use the legal process to that end...rather than say...picketing a funeral.

Nothing wrong with using the legal process to make a point. I do not get the picketing a funeral reference.

[Red Harvest]

Nothing wrong with using the legal process to make a point. I do not get the picketing a funeral reference.

It was a reference to Fred Phelps and the gay soldier funeral. I was just making the comparison of an acceptable means of trying to change things, and unacceptable ones (and pointing to one that everyone here could agree on being unacceptable.)

[English assassin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
It's illegal to fire a women employee because she is pregnant, in denmark.

Is it illegal also if it's already stated on the contract? Well I suppose the contract will be nullified anyway.

It would be in the UK, anyway, you can't contract out of employment rights. I expect Denmark to be the same as the underlying law is EU law.

In fact in the UK if you hire woman employee to give maternity cover for another woman who is off on maternity leave, and the woman you hire then announces she is four months pregnant, (which you can't ask her at interview obviously unless you want to had out a big cheque for sex discrimination there and then) then congratulations, you now have TWO female employees on maternity leave and you have to hire a third.

Once they bring in age discrimination we won't even be able to try to get round it by hiring wrinklies.

I'm all in favour of decent maternity protection, after all it was very handy when we were having our kids, but it does go too far in some respects.

[Sjakihata]

I just watched 60 minutes couple of days ago. Apparently, in the US it is legal to fire an employee because he/she smokes?!

That is completely illegal in denmark as well. And I don't mean smoking on the job - just smoking in general, they had to take a test, they refused and was fired. They did not smoke on the job - but at home, still fired. Why? Because the company wanted to save money on potential health insurnces... If something like that happened in DK, the employer would have to either hire he/she again or pay a year maybe more wages.

So the two systems is very different - I know which one I prefer. I do not even smoke.

[Sigurd]

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark; it is called socialism.

[Red Harvest]

I just watched 60 minutes couple of days ago. Apparently, in the US it is legal to fire an employee because he/she smokes?!

That is completely illegal in denmark as well. And I don't mean smoking on the job - just smoking in general, they had to take a test, they refused and was fired. They did not smoke on the job - but at home, still fired. Why? Because the company wanted to save money on potential health insurnces... If something like that happened in DK, the employer would have to either hire he/she again or pay a year maybe more wages.

So the two systems is very different - I know which one I prefer. I do not even smoke.

Smokers are lousy employees on average: moody, irritable, with a high absentee rate. Drug addiction and drug use in the workplace has that effect on people. In addition, in my industry there are a serious safety hazards due to "sneaking" a cigarette around flammables. I'm not as concerned about the health insurance costs as that is a secondary concern (though real.) However, for job performance reasons I would be disinclined to hire most smokers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My local paper, the Daily Press, just published this article in today's edition!

I'm so proud to be on the cutting edge.....

[Leet Eriksson]

Whats the schools business if the teacher was pregnant or not?

Here at least they give the pregnant women a long vacation (while still paying her wages).