Teacher fired for premarital sex?

[Animate]

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

Well now...

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Animate

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.

[agzg]

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.

[Psi U MC Vito]

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.

[Alumiyum]

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

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

Sources inside the school said in order for Hamilton to work there, she had to sign a contract promising that she would follow certain Christian beliefs -- one of which is no premarital sex.

By violating that contract, sources said the school had no choice but to fire her in order to set a proper Christian example.

Officials at the school said because they are a private Christian school, they are protected from certain civil rights violations.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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.

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

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

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.)

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[33girl]

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.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.)

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?

[DrPhil]

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.

[Alumiyum]

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

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 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.

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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?

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.