Teacher fired for premarital sex?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by nittanygirl

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.

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

Originally Posted by indygphib

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...

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.

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 but I don't think it's illegal.