Private School Teacher Fired For Out of Wedlock Pregnancy

[Andara Bledin]

Unless the employees at your store were designated as ministers and expected to teach or preach, then it's apples to oranges and irrelevant.

The firing really has nothing to due with the teacher's pregnancy other than the fact that her being pregnant is proof that she is engaging in extra-marital sex, which is the actual reason for the firing.

It's just so much more headline worthy to focus on, "OMG, School Fired a Pregnant Woman for Being Pregnant!"

The only question at hand at this point is whether she can be considered a part of the ministry legally or if she is merely a contract employee. The school obviously considers her the former, and I suspect she was fine with that designation until her values failed to coincide with theirs.

In a similar case (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC), the Supreme Court held that because the teacher in question was specifically denoted as a minister (as opposed to 'lay' teachers who were not held to the same religious requirements), the church and school were not guilty of discrimination as their action in firing her was protected by the First Amendment.

^-.-^

[bainsidhe]

Thanks AB for adding some food for thought.

I'm pretty torn on this. If her title really was "minister" and not teacher, then I feel like I should agree with the school. But what actually is in the morals clause? Does it spell out her situation or similar? Because simply saying she has to obey the morals and values of Christianity is a pretty vague statement.

But I also feel she has a valid case. After all she's an employee, not a volunteer, and she pays federal and state income taxes out of her paycheck. And if the private school is like the ones around here, the school receives public funds to help operate. In which case, she definitely should not have been fired for a legally-protected condition.

[Andara Bledin]

If it's decided that she was acting as an agent of the church as a minister, that invokes the ministerial clause, which basically says that churches are not bound by labor laws the same as other businesses when dealing with specifically church-based employees. This plays into prior decisions that prevent the government from interfering in who a church chooses to employ or refuse to employ in a ministerial capacity.

Whether a person is a paid employee or a volunteer doesn't factor into the matter.

The case I linked to in my last post was also pursued by the ADA and was a purely medical matter with no question of morality. The SCotUS still found in favor the church being protected by the First Amendment.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

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.

Not quite. Look at it this way: it's *extramarital sex* they object to. The pregnancy is simply evidence that she had it.

[Rageaholic]

I guess they have the right to do this, but it's an extremely dick move on the schools part.

[fireheart17]

Not quite. Look at it this way: it's *extramarital sex* they object to. The pregnancy is simply evidence that she had it.

That then begs the question: what about rape/sexual assault?

If the woman decides to keep the baby as a result of the rape/sexual assault, then would they still fire her? It's extramarital sex sure, but she had no control over it. She could've been wearing a burqa and been raped.

[Andara Bledin]

That then begs the question: what about rape/sexual assault?

Except that this case has nothing to do with rape/sexual assault.

Considering the most common stance is no choosing pre-marital sex, but no abortion, then her carrying a child that is the result of assault to term would be within the accepted moral stance, and thus not an issue.

Rather than her being a case of "do what I say, not what I do," it would be a positive example of the behavior they wish to encourage.

^-.-^

[fireheart17]

Except that this case has nothing to do with rape/sexual assault.

Considering the most common stance is no choosing pre-marital sex, but no abortion, then her carrying a child that is the result of assault to term would be within the accepted moral stance, and thus not an issue.

Rather than her being a case of "do what I say, not what I do," it would be a positive example of the behavior they wish to encourage.

^-.-^

I'm pointing it out as a hypothetical. Because if that's the case, then I can already see two flaws with that policy:

-How do they know if the woman isn't married? Not all woman use "Mrs" once they've gotten married. Did they demand that she produce her marriage certificate at the interview? (if they did, I'd think that something was up, as a marriage certificate has absolutely NO bearing on how I do my job)

-Say I was at that school. Say I really wanted a child. I could have sex with my boyfriend and have a baby. Then I'd turn up and claim that it was a sexual assault baby. The school could do absolutely nothing about it.

[bara]

I wonder what they would have said if she claimed immaculate conception?

[Rapscallion]

I wonder what they would have said if she claimed immaculate conception?

"Trans-vaginal ultrasound, now."

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

-How do they know if the woman isn't married? Not all woman use "Mrs" once they've gotten married.

She likely offered the information to them herself either when she was first hired or at the point when she informed them of her condition.

-Say I was at that school. Say I really wanted a child. I could have sex with my boyfriend and have a baby. Then I'd turn up and claim that it was a sexual assault baby. The school could do absolutely nothing about it.

First, you don't have to have sex to have a baby. If you really wanted a child and didn't want to betray the trust your employer had placed in you, there are a few different routes to a non-sexual conception.

However, if you were to go the route of the filthy liar, while they could not really do anything to you, they can inform law enforcement of the claimed situation, and things would just get uglier from there and you'd still likely lose your job and any possible chance of being hired elsewhere.

As for the whole 'immaculate conception' bit as relates to this situation, there's little to no chance whatsoever that such an individual would be believed were they not also willing to be tested to prove that no sexual activity was involved, so you'd still likely lose your job and any possible chance of being hired elsewhere.

^-.-^

[Anthony K. S.]

How do they know if the woman isn't married?

Actually, that's one of the easiest things to find out about people.

"How's your family?" is a very routine conversational question, right behind "How are you?"

A person could very easily find out if a co-worker is married or not, just from everyday polite conversation. And if you become friends with a co-worker, it would be a lot harder not to know if they're married than to know.

Remember, this school didn't need to know her marital status when they hired her. The administrators could have easily found out that she wasn't married, just from normal conversation with her on any given day, and then found out she was pregnant.

[MadMike]

Except that this case has nothing to do with rape/sexual assault.

I don't think that's what she was asking.

[Peppergirl]

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.

Wow. Way to paint an entire group of people with the same ridiculous brush.

Perhaps you meant to refer to the faction of crazy, overzealous so-called Christians? Because I consider myself a Christian and am certainly NONE of the things that you describe. Nor am I a hypocrite.

[blas87]

Ah, Pepper, you're preaching to the choir. Remember, Christian bashing is a free for all, but don't ever tread on anyone's right to not believe in the magic man in the sky who grants wishes and that fictional big book.