Yes, but their argument is that they wouldn't fire any pregnant woman, they'd fire any woman who had sex before marriage and her queries around maternity leave was only the way they found out about her "inappropriate" behavior.

A coworker of mine (in the public school system) wouldn't even go to a liquor store to buy wine or what-have-you to COOK with because she didn't want someone from church or a parent to SEE her there.

NOW, I teach at a Catholic school and it's a whole different ballgame! Us Catholics, we're such lushes..lol

I just signed my contract for next year a couple of weeks ago...

"PARISH may, at its opinion, immediately terminate this agreement ... for any of the following reasons:
1. Personal conduct or lifestyle contrary to moral or religious doctrines or teachings of the Catholic Church or the Norms of the Diocese
2. Being guilty or engaging in any acts of immorality, intemperance, insubordination, unprofessional conduct..."

When was she judged? The school didn't pass judgement on her character (or slander her, label her with a scarlet letter, etc) they just expressed that she wasn't following the guidelines of her (extremely vague) contract and said she could not work there on those grounds. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying I don't see a judgement in that.
This.
Absolutely. This is the answer that would have been best, though they asked her so out of the blue, I don't blame her for giving an automatic reaction.

This made me lol. :o

Honestly, I think the whole thing is totally effed up but it all boils down to the contract. I hate to say it but, if it was on paper, then there's really nothing to be done, she knew what would happen. If it's not then sue away!!

They told the entire school that she got fired for fornication.

Which would technically be true. However there's not much detail about how that was done at this point and whether it itself is inappropriate and something she could win a suit over.

Anyone else wonder if maybe there were questions about her relationship before the baby was conceived?

I wonder if perhaps there were some scandalous rumors and the conception date confirmed them.

Sometimes, when it appears that one course of action is just so much more reasonable, here just not asking about conception date, it makes me wonder what factors drove the decision. Sure, it could be wanting to avoid the cost of her leave; it could be that they are a certain kind of no one gets any privacy kind of Christians; but I also wonder if there's more to the story of her own behavior.

Public teachers in Georgia lose their certificates for crimes of moral turpitude, and that's about as specific as it gets. It sort of sets up the subjectivity you see here, but I think it's rarely used.

That's not a judgement, it's a fact. It'd be different if they told the school "You're teacher's gone because she's a filthy whore," but they didn't. Again, I don't agree in the least with how they violated her privacy but there's a difference between passing judgement and stating a fact is all I'm trying to say.

If you think there wasn't any judgment being thrown around here, you're naive.

I still think this would've been a good opportunity for the school to show an example of the great Christian concept of forgiveness.

You assume they didn't forgive her. Forgiveness doesn't mean no consequences. Also you usually have to apologize, and I don't think she was inclined to. (Not saying she should have) It's only little kids who think you just get to say "Sorry" and we all pretend it never happened.

The thing that gets me is the time period. For three weeks, it wouldn't be as noticeable. Why make a big deal about it? They could have even terminated her without making an announcement that she was a fornicator.

You have to look at it through their lens. It's not whether the transgression is an obvious one or not. It's whether the transgression was made. It violated her agreement and the trust the school and the parents put in her to be a moral example for their children. The fact that the school didn't sweep it under the rug because it could have been hidden actually reinforces the honesty of their opinions. Unless they've colluded to hide similar transgressions in the past they appear to be fairly straightforward on the matter.

I don't know how the announcement was made, it could have been making an example of her, it could have been an announcement, answering a question, or a statement at a PTA/school board meeting that got filtered down to other parents and students, I don't know. So while it sounds like something went wrong there, I don't know what it was or whether I think it was so far out of line that I'd be suing too.

Far point. But depending on how it was done, it seems to me to be a case of casting stones.

Yes, I'm reserving judgment on that point until I find out more.

I do hope it's clear that I don't agree with the school, I just try to understand it from their perspective.

I know some have applauded the school for not appearing to draw a distinction between her transgression with her fiance and some slut puppy/whore dog who was sleeping with anything that moved, but I think the fact that she was in a committed relationship which lead to marriage should have been a consideration - "Go forth and sin no more", as Jesus said. She MARRIED the man, and is hardly what I would consider a bad role model. How many of those on the school board were virgins when they married? Can we check and see the birth dates and weights of their children and do the math? So if she had snuck off and had an abortion that would've been okay, because no one would have had to know? I totally understand the need to model a Christian life - but that should also include the acknowledgement that it is possible to make a mistake and reform yourself, as she apparently did. What, they didn't give her a scarlet "F"? I'm far too familiar with this type of sanctimonious holier-than-thou Christianity - and it stinks.