Teacher fired for premarital sex?

[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.