Teacher fired for premarital sex?

[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.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

[Munchkin03]

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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

Now THAT is funny.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

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

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

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[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.

[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.