Private School Teacher Fired For Out of Wedlock Pregnancy

[tropicsgoddess]

This teacher was fired for being not married and pregnant at this Christian private school. The school said that she violated the morals clause because of that. But the teacher disagrees as well as her attorney. I agree with the attorney because legally, you can't fire a pregnant woman nor discriminate against one. Private institution or not.


Link!

[drunkenwildmage]

This is interesting..


I didn't see the videio, but linked to the following arctle.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/education/T...146926755.html



Basically to sum it up.. the teacher signed an contract to work at some kind of Private Christian School. In that contract was a morals clause that, from I can tell, is based on the moral beliefs of the school, and the religion institute that founded it. The teacher getting pregnant was a volition of the Morals clause, thus, in violation of the contract. Now at a public school, or pretty much any other working environment this would be a non issue(and it should be a non issue) .. but, I think, based on the values that the school is teaching, that no premarital sex (which itself is another argument) is one of those values IMHO The school, who has a teacher that is directly volitiated one of it's core values, has it in the contract the teach signed, she can't violate those values, is in it's perfect right with firing the teacher because she did violate the contract. According to the article Since the school is considered a religion institution, then, it's actually considered a form of ministry thus would fall under the separation of 'Church vs State'. So I think this would be considered part of the separation.

[bara]

Im pretty sure that a clause like that goes against a law or two. If thats the case, then the clause is invalid.

[drunkenwildmage]

Im pretty sure that a clause like that goes against a law or two. If thats the case, then the clause is invalid.

Under normal circumstances then I believe you are right.. but, since this school is a religion institution, it's considered a ministry thus, any kind of law that prohibits such clauses would not be enforceable in this case, since enforcing them would violate the 'separation of church vs state' clause in the US Constitution.

[fireheart17]

The ONLY way I could see their "moral clause" being valid, is if they had an exemption granted by the equal opportunity board or whatever handles those sort of cases-state or federally. usually however, you need a DAMN good reason to be granted one of those exemptions and generally the reason cannot be on the grounds of religion. Race-maybe (if there are programs out there designed to help say, an Indigenous person gain employment), Sex-possibly (one school down here was granted an exemption to give preference to girls wanting to enrol to help bring the gender balance into line), disability-again, possible for various reasons. Religion-nope.

and also, do the schools demand a marriage certificate? What's to stop me say, claiming that I'm married in an interview (I'm not) and wearing a wedding ring, but not bringing in a certificate? I could claim that I'm married and show the ring, then go and get knocked up.

[Rapscallion]

I don't know how the US views such things, but over here churches are considered employers if they're paying someone and thus they're under the aegis of employment laws.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Churches try very hard to have everything they do be considered 'church' business. However, the government views institutions whose primary purpose is not church-related to be not-churches for the purpose of not being allowed exemption based on being-a-church grounds.

I suspect that in this case, due to the nature of the position, her firing will be upheld, particularly if the school's charter specifically references the fact that they expect religion to be discussed openly during classes although that's likely not required.

^-.-^

[bex1218]

As much as I hate religion, I have to agree with the firing. If she was under a set of guidelines and broke em, she is not a good rolemodel for the students at the school. If it was a public school, then this would be a whole new story.

[Rapscallion]

If they were guidelines that were legally enforcable, sure. I don't know about the jurisdiction. I do know the UK wouldn't tolerate that.

Rapscallion

[DrFaroohk]

Hmmm...so does this mean I can open a store, call it a private institution, and put a sign up saying anyone caught shoplifting is subject to slow painful torture? How is that ANY different from this?

[Andara Bledin]

Seriously? With all of the various church/secular debates that have gone on on this very forum, you have no idea why you being a private institution would be different than this being a church?

Churches have a semi-protected status as written into the Constitution. I'm not sure I entirely agree with how it's interpreted, but this situation is consistent with that interpretation, and as such, is allowed.

Because the woman is a teacher, she is directly influencing what the children learn. The school cannot, in good conscience, allow a teacher to become pregnant out of wedlock and not censure her if they want to teach that such behavior is not acceptable by their belief system. If she'd been a janitor or office staff, they wouldn't have the same legal ground for their actions.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

The thing is... by firing her, they're indirectly saying "if you *do* get pregnant, go have a secret abortion so people won't know you're unchaste."

[DrFaroohk]

I'm just saying, it doesn't matter how you dress it up, it still seems like this is firing for pregnancy, which I always thought was illegal. I don't like it when one special group is allowed this special privilege.

How about all the extra shifts I had to cover at my old store because so-and-so was pregnant? Fucked up my schedule right to hell. Missed out on social stuff, sleep, etc...does that mean I can fire them because they're a pain in the ass?

[RedRoseSpiral]

I don't see a problem with this, but I'm tired of Christians being hypocrites. They go on about no sex before marriage and all that and then turn around and to all those things. If she wanted to work at a Christian school that teaches Christian values she should have kept her legs closed or used better contraceptive. If Christians want this to be a Christian country then they need to know their will be consequences for their actions.

[SkullKing]

Hmmm...so does this mean I can open a store, call it a private institution, and put a sign up saying anyone caught shoplifting is subject to slow painful torture? How is that ANY different from this?

For starters, the obvious fact that you ca not legally torture anyone in under any sircustance.

But there are circunstances where you are allowed to fire someone.

The discussion isn´t if the school can do somethign that is always ilegal, but if in this particular case it is ilegal to do something thta is sometimes(maybe, even most times). legal.

Frankly I think the school is on the right.

she is not being fired for being pregnant, because it she won´t be able to work as much.

She is being fired because she works in a institutioon where people send their children to learn values which she openly goes against, making her inapropriate to work there.