Teacher fired for premarital sex?
 

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/376837...-today_people/

Well now...

I don't like that the contract she signed existed. I don't. But she signed it and either she shouldn't have broken it or she should have LIED HER ASS OFF when they dared to ask her conception date.

Wow. That's incredible jackassery and I hope she wins her suit.

ETA: Where does it say she signed a contract? Unless it was explicit in her employment contract, I don't think the school has a leg to stand on. Furthermore, federal discrimination laws trump "contracts" in many ways.

This is stupid. They fired her for fornication. Ok I can understand that she undermined the morals of the school. But affairs of the bed room should stay private. Besides, it's not like she is shouting it to the streets. 3 weeks is a small enough time gap for her to claim that she conceived on the night of the weeding, especially since kids won't know the difference.

And this is why Christians get such a bad rap in the US.

The clause in her contract didn't specify what "standards" she was supposed to be considering. I guess because it is a Christian school it could be inferred that the bible is the guide, but let's be honest, that's not exactly black and white is it?

If she were 22, had a fling during Spring Break, and then told everyone about it, I'd understand a very strict Christian school having some issues to iron out with her, but even then, firing? And this situation is FAR from that. If the school had not subsequently told the entire campus population and their mommas no one would have the slightest idea her baby was conceived a mere three weeks before her wedding. I REALLY hope she wins this battle.

Let me find another story, it was a private Christian school and I was under the impression there was a behavioral contract. However if it was only the clause on the employment application, well I still think she may be still be stuck.

Also I don't think there's anti-discrimination law that covers "sex outside of marriage" and she wasn't fired because she was pregnant but because she got pregnant.

Any teacher at the Catholic schools in my hometown who would have been pregnant out of wedlock was put on a leave of absence (at a minimum, I don't know that no one was fired) for that time. I don't like that either, but it's a private school.

ETA: First story I could find that mentioned it: Teacher Fired

Which is why she should have LIED and said the baby was slightly early for medical reasons or something. LIE LIE LIE.

On one hand it's refreshing that they're treating the "sins" the same way. Inherently there's nothing more or less moral (from their point of view) about having sex 3 weeks before your wedding or having a one night stand.

I wonder how the news was spread, this is one of those things that everyone would have "figured out" one way or the other. Otherwise well liked teachers don't just disappear with no reason, and a small, insular school culture would have found out. Announcing it though? Inappropriate.

(I think the whole thing's inappropriate, I just think they probably had the right to do it.)

They don't cover it in name but sexual harassment laws (asking when a child was concieved and making employment decisions based on that information is certainly sexual harassment) certainly cover it, and anti-discrimination laws are just another rabbit out of that same hat.

Furthermore, a man would probably not be fired for the same offense, because there would be little to no reason to ever ask that question of a man, who would be less likely to take FMLA due to pregnancy. Hence, discrimination.

Was pregant=got pregnant in many ways. Had she been unmarried and pregnant while on a job interview and found out that they didn't hire her specifically for the reason that she was pregnant she'd have (IMO) a pretty strong case there, too.

It's a Christian school. I don't know why this is shocking to anyone.

IMO a "Christian school" entails different things than simply being a Christian as a private person.

Agreed, there's no actual moral difference, but most of the time, IMO, issues like this are more about the image of the institution/school/organization than the actual sin. From that viewpoint, it would make sense if this were a pregnancy that was know by all to be the result of a less stable set of circumstances to take action...though like I said, even then firing seems over the top.

I would've definitely just said the baby was three weeks early. That happens all the time, but I understand that she was caught off guard, because who has the balls to ask you if your baby was conceived before the wedding night or not?

She worked for a private Christian school. I said "DUH" when I read this article.

This isn't about Christianity. Those who work at (private) schools that are centered around religions (regardless of the religion) are held to strict standards. That applies to K-12 and also to some colleges.

Yeah but there's always the fact that firing a woman for sinning isn't very Christian. I DO think a lot of these schools/organizations really miss the point of Christianity and Jesus's teachings when they do things like this. Hate the sin, not the sinner and all that.

That's your opinion of what is Christian. My opinion of what is Christian is different. :)

Christians will never all agree on what it means to be "Christian," but an employee at such a school is signing up for whatever the school sees as "being Christian." The employees don't have to agree in their personal lives as long as it doesn't cross the lines into the school--and a baby before wedlock does that.

Jesus was a pretty articulate guy, according to the bible. There's a difference between understanding that something someone did is sinful and judging that person for what they did.

I am in the position in my personal life of subscribing to no religion in a family where Christianity is absolutely part of the fabric of daily life, so though I don't necessarily believe in any religion I am sympathetic to the bad rap Christians often get, and I wish organizations would try the Jesus route whenever they get a chance. 18 years of Sunday school, Vacation Bible School, and Bible studies rubbed off on me enough to know He taught patience and forgiveness, not judgment.

It could fall under sexual harassment, but I'm not sure how that works if she didn't object to the question, but just the reaction to her answer to the question.

I agree that it's sexist in practice, however I suspect if this woman's husband had been a teacher as well he would have been fired. I don't know that, and I don't know if they're as "vigilant" about Joe Teacher talking about his pregnant wife who's having a six month pregnancy instead of nine.

You can't discriminate on the status of being pregnant, that is, you can't choose not to hire someone just because they're pregnant, but the school's objecting to the actions, not the state of pregnancy.

As a religious organization they have a lot of leeway to hire/fire based on their beliefs. Hypothetically if they were in a state that prohibited discrimination based on orientation they might not be able to discriminate against a gay man, but they would almost certainly be able to avoid hiring a non-celibate gay man as that is about morals not status.

Which is why in its own twisted way it's almost refreshing that this was treated as the equivalent to a one-night stand.

The issue is that the teacher is supposed to be a moral example at this school. So even though perhaps the "Christian" thing to do would be to help (generic) her choose not to have an abortion, get married, repent, whatever... this school sees her as having a large enough flaw that she shouldn't be an example to students.

Sometimes I hate understanding the point of view, but there it is.

Christianity has different denominations partially because of different interpretations and approaches to Christianity. Therefore, this isn't about discussing Christianity and WWJD but instead about what it means to sign a contract (that I assume people read before they sign) for a private (insert any religion) school.

I guess IMO the better example would be to show their students what it means to care for others and forgive by being compassionate towards her. But that's the Christianity I was raised in. Every religion has different shades.

That would mean talking about sex with children and we can't have that ;)

But in the end, as has been pointed out several times, she apparently signed a contract and agreed to it. Her failure to do so, even if the contract was ridiculous, means the firing was probably legit.

About 15 years ago, this happened to a woman in my hometown. She left town, married, had children, and then divorced. She came home to help her ailing mother, but before she left, she got pregnant by a man that she was dating. They broke up before she found out she was pregnant and she wanted to keep the baby. The principal gave her an ultimatum--either get married or get fired.

I don't remember what happened, but it was all over the national news as well.

I find it funny that the school is asking her to drop the lawsuit because it would be the "Christian" thing to do.

If it did indeed specifically list premarital sex as a firing offense.

If I were her I'd be pretty riled up about the fact that her personal business was broadcast to the entire school. I know they'd have to come up with a reason to explain why a well-liked teacher was fired, but there HAS to be a more tactful way to do it.

Now THAT is funny.

Yes, the details of a contract if it existed are crucial here.

And I agree, but the details of that are also iffy here.

Does the Bible admonish Christians to obey the laws of the land, or is that just the Quran?

There's the whole render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's thing.

And Romans 13: 1-7 (NIV I believe)

As someone who attended an albeit liberal Christian school I think the school was in the right. They have rules and they were enforcing them. My school didn't allow teachers to marry someone who was divorced without an annulment. It made for a set of teachers who had been "dating" 20+ years while I was in school, but whatever.

3 months before I would understand....
but 3 weeks? no one would have ever even known she conceived 3 weeks before her wedding had the man not asked her. Its unethical. I don't go around asking pregnant women when they conceived just when they are due. And out of curiosity.

Hey, public schools pull this crap, too. The school where I had my first teaching job had a "morals clause" as a part of the contract, and did the school board looooooooove to point it out to the teachers.

Not only were we not supposed to do the nasty unless we were married, drinking was highly frowned upon as well. Example: A teacher and his wife went to a local tavern for dinner. He ordered a beer with his dinner and one of the school board members saw it and went off on him - IN THE RESTAURANT. Was the teacher trashed? Absolutely not - it was ONE BEER. But the school board member yelled at him for "being a bad example" for students. Um, this place was a 21+ establishment...and what was the board member doing there if the place was such a bad influence in the community?

I only lasted two years in that hellhole...

It's still sexual harassment even if she didn't object at that moment to the question. Whether or not she chooses to report it is the kicker, and it seems she sailed right over sexual harassment to discrimination.

Well, it seems she was pretty discrete about the conception date, so, had she not asked for FMLA (which many times a man will not for a pregnancy) the question never would have been raised. Don't know that for a fact though - I mean, I'm sure people would start asking the due date once she started showing.

In my opinion, "getting pregnant" equals the status of being pregnant. I'm not a judge but the two are fairly indistinguishable in my mind. Had she not been pregnant (or had she had it terminated without telling anyone that she was pregnant), she would probably still have her job. The only other way one could be fired for premarital sex and have proof would be pictures/tape or documented talk.

In my constitutional knowledge (and I will admit, I don't have much), the first amendment protects people from the government, but does not place religion above the government. Federal law still should apply.

In my opinion, religious edicts do not supercede federal law but in cases of religious objection (for things like mandatory conscription, etc) and therefore religious organizations should not be able to hire/fire based on (legal) sexual practices but for specific positions (in my mind, only members of the cloth). Because this teacher was not a sister, what happens in her bedroom and her body is her business and no one elses. Furthermore, the school principal added insult to injury by telling the parents of the children in class/coworkers why she was fired. Her bedroom should not be on display to that many people unless she chooses to put it out there.

That's ridiculous...I don't think a teacher should be getting trashed in public but it is ridiculous to be like that about one beer. Damn. I don't think I would have lasted two years...

I wish MC, SCOGC Chief Justice would come in and school us about this.

Which is why, when he asked, she should have LIED. (or never worked there in the first place)

True, and for the most part they get away with it "for the children" or they aren't stupid enough to tell you WHY you get fired, just that you're not meeting standards or something vague.

Yes but I'm not sure she's making that claim, and while she could sue for that, it probably wouldn't get her her job back. (I wasn't denying it was sexual harassment, just that she hasn't appeared to be saying that the question itself was inappropriate.)

That is the kind of question pregnant women get asked a lot, it's true. (the due date that is) I don't think a guy's as likely to get caught, but if he did he probably would be fired as well, assuming this school is actually fair about it. I'll save my complaints on that part until I hear that this school let Joe Teacher screw a student and keep teaching or something idiotic like that.


I don't know how it works in discrimination law either, but if the school maintains that it was the premarital sex act, not the pregnancy, and that the pregnancy and requested maternity leave was just how they found out, I don't think they lose on those grounds.


There are quite a few areas where the law only applies if the institution is receiving federal money (as that is the only way the court has determined that the fed. government has the right to make the law in the first place.) There are other instances with religious exceptions built into the law. And, there's also the contract (details unknown) that she (apparently) knowingly and willingly signed. Determining the contract invalid due to X reason is a whole other area of the law.

I agree 100% about making the information public. I don't know how it was done, but odds are it was inappropriate.

Religious orgs pretty much only get to override discrimination laws on moral grounds. A school could hire only Christian teachers, or have all teachers regardless of religion sign a contract about what is taught and how, or have these moral standards contracts.

In the end for me, it comes down to her agreeing to these terms and only objecting when it affected her. I think the terms suck and shouldn't exist and shouldn't be agreed to. But if you need a job, and you're willing to agree to the contract then it's hard for me to say that complaining now is the right thing to do.

In short: Contract bad :mad: but I don't think it's illegal.

Lying is a sin. If she lied, and they found out by confronting her about the conception date later, they could have fired her for that, too. At least that's what the clause on the employment application leaves her open to.

It sounds like the employment application clause was too vague to stand up. If they're going to fire people based on behavior it views as immoral, they need to spell out what those behaviors are, especially since the Bible is full of conflicting "laws" and not every Christian views them equally.

LOL. My "schooling" would be that it is almost impossible to make any kind of informed judgment based on a news article. Even if one assumes that the article got every detail it reported right (an assumption I would never make), there are too many unanswered and important questions. For example:

• Exactly what did the contract say?
• Does language in the employment application constitute part of a contract? If so, what exactly does it say?
• Exactly what are the teacher's claims in her lawsuit?
• Is "fornication" really the reason she was fired or was that a pretext, say, to avoid the expense of maternity leave?

Yes but that is a lie that is unlikely to get caught. If she didn't want to lie that's one thing, but if she just didn't think she'd get in trouble she should have LIIIIED.

The question is whether there's only the clause on the application or whether there is this contract that has been alleged/denied. (And then, what does THAT say, etc.)

If there was a contract, I wonder why the school hasn't told what it says rather than put a vague clause on a job application out there.

She should never have answered the question, to be honest. Hindsight is 20/20, though.

Lawyers possibly.

And yes, the other option besides my preferred "LIE" is saying something like, "Are you asking me to tell you about my sex life? I find that question inappropriate for a Christian setting" or something.

Maybe their lawyer is advising them to fight this case in the courts rather than in the press.

For sure, but in that case, why even put the clause on the application out there?

It might have been the teacher who did that, or generic person who answered phones before they locked down the communications.

According to the first article, it was a school administrator: