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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by agzg

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

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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.

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.)

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

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

[agzg]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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:

Fired for ‘fornication’
A week later, she was notified that she was terminated. In a letter sent to her attorney, Edward Gay, last July, the school’s administrator, Julie Ennis, wrote:

“Jarretta was asked not to return because of a moral issue that was disregarded, namely fornication, sex outside of marriage. The employment application, which she filled out, clearly states that as a leader before our students we require all teachers to maintain and communicate the values and purpose of our school.”

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by agzg

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

That's from last July -- almost a year ago.

That's also in a letter to the teacher's attorney which presumably he has released to the press, not in a statement from the administration to the press.

[Munchkin03]

What a mess. Why is it the school's business when they conceived?

What if this school receives federal funding? I know that some private and parochial schools receive school lunches and special ed teachers from the government. Would that impact anything?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

What a mess. Why is it the school's business when they conceived?

What if this school receives federal funding? I know that some private and parochial schools receive school lunches and special ed teachers from the government. Would that impact anything?

It could but it's questionable, and it depends on whether the funding for those programs comes with the strings attached or not.

[SWTXBelle]

I teach at a private Christian school.
We sign a contract that says we will live according to Christian principles - I'll try to find my contract (!) and quote the exact language, but it is vague.

eta - "The letter killeth."

[preciousjeni]

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.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act covers you once you become pregnant regardless of whether or not it is before or after marriage.

“We request that Jarretta withdraw her complaint and consider the testimony of the Lord,” the letter concludes.