Teacher fired for getting pregnant weeks before marriage

[jodifla]

Then she will lose and get nothing. Have fun taking care of that kid without any money.

Showing your true colors now!

 

[jodifla]

I know that's what I would do. In her shoes I wouldn't give a flying fig about how much money I would get, as long as it was enough to pay the lawyer. To me it would be more about 1) Sticking it to the school and 2) setting precedent so future employees don't have the same thing happen to them.

All of this is assuming there was no "morality clause" in her contract. But something tells me if there were, most lawyers wouldn't touch the case. And even if there was, there is still the issue of the school violating her privacy by stating why the fired her and her medical condition. The right move for the school would be at most to say "We fired her for breach of contract, but we cannot comment on specifics" or at best "We cannot comment on pending litigation".

Like I said, I'm sure they had a right to fire her. But besides HIPPA violations, most employers now long give reasons of why they fired employees-- because employees have SUED and WON when this has happened.

 

[Hawks4Realz]

Because that's the real-life consequence women can feel forced to make if they know they will lose their jobs when it is discovered they are pregnant.

That's pretty terrible if that happens.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

Why would you agree and accept a job when you didnt agree or had an issue with their policies? The fight should have been at the time of employment or during employment, dont you think? Im having trouble understanding people who know what is expected but completely disregard it and then sue because they just didnt agree with it...

I teach my kids that rules are rules, even if you don't like them. Fight to change them if you like, but don't just ignore them because you don't agree.

If you teach your kids that rules are rules, then that should apply to the the school too, correct? They should follow the rules (Federal Law) regarding privacy, even if they don't like them.

She is suing for violation of privacy, a rule (law) that the school allegedly broke.

What the teacher did was not breaking the law. Perhaps violating some ethical principles, but not breaking the law. The school allegedly broke the law, hence the lawsuit.

 

[Wishing on a star]

And the takeaway from this is lie. Or have an abortion. Great message, church!

Where in the heck are you coming up with that message????
I don't know, maybe you just simply do not like churches or religious based organizations... But, the above statement is quite ridiculous.

This teacher was and is fully responsible for the situation in which she has found herself.

How about the fact that she lied when she implied that she agreed with their expectations when she TOOK the job...

Why not, like, go find a job where you can do so without openly lying and disobeying the organizations policies.

This school does not OWE her that job/position.

They were fully within their rights to dismiss her for failing to go by their expectations and to fail to represent their mission appropriately.

I am not sure if there is proof that they broke any laws by determining that she became pregnant before marriage... Her marriage date and her due date would be quite enough to make that determination.

While the school has made a HUGE error and has broken the law if they have made any statement to anyone about this teachers personal situation... AND, YES, FOR THIS THEY SHOULD BE LIABLE.

It is completely unfathomable to think that they were not within their rights to dismiss this woman as a teacher. It is completely unfathomable to think that they, and not her, are 'responsible'.

And, to respond to those who replied about my earlier comments...
1. Yes, I stand by my first post... The title of this thread is totally sensationalist and inflamatory and is 'teacher drama'. A more appropriate title would have been "Christian School dismisses teacher" possibly adding 'for premarital sex'....
The title "Teacher fired for getting pregnant" is just way misleading and over the top. ( But, hey, can't say as I am surprized )

2. Also, I never said that pregnancy was not a protected class.
I asked a question about teachers feelings rerotected class, based on this thread and many others...

Technically, this teacher was dismissed for conduct contrary to the basic Christian beliefs of this Christian school. NOT because she was pregnant.

Yes, I say let the school hang, if guilty, for violating this teachers civil rights and privacy by making statements regarding her situation....

But, really, this teacher is just darned lucky.... Because, other than the organization being stupid enough to make illegal statements, she would be out on the streetcorner without a leg to stand on, and without one shred of my sympathy.

 

[barkley]

I would imagine that for legal purposes, this supposed "Morality code" would have to be spelled out clearly somewhere, and not inherently implied.

Whether another Christian school would ever have her is moot. I'd bet she doesn't bother applying to any ever again. I sure as heck wouldn't.

it would'nt nesc. have to be spelled out on the school's part. it could be spelled out elsewhere, as within the particular denomination of christian church the teacher/employee belongs to.

many christian schools require, as a condition of employment, that an applicant/current employee, must be an active, current member in "good standing" of a christian church (or in the case of some schools-a specific denomination). when a person applies they are aknowledging that they are, and will continue to be so, including following the rules of that denomination. if a person does something the school finds questionable or objectionable (morality wise), the school may look to that denomination's rules and find the employee has violated one or more.

this is the case with the christian school system i have several family members working as teachers for. it's a condition of their employment, and if they violate one of the church's rules (system where they have to belong to a specific denomination) they are out the door. this was also the way it worked years ago when i taught at a non-denominational christian school.


as for firing the teacher in question-it does'nt sound as if the school's basis is the pregnancy, it's that the teacher had sex prior to marriage.



p.s. while i was typing this i found another article on this case. it state's that the current lawsuit has been filed because the former teacher has already exhausted her complaint's to her state's human relations commission, and the u.s eeoc. her former employer has taken the stance that i mentioned above-pointing out that the former teacher signed paperwork within her application to teach at the school that supports the school's position.

i think, if the federal eeoc has passed on this it's going to be difficult at best for the teacher to succeed. she is suing based on discrimination due to her pregnancy (she was'nt fired for being pregnant), and that she's been "offended" by the school (as far as i know, offending someone is'nt against the law, and if there was some kind of legal basis that had required the school to keep their termination reasons confidential you can bet the lawsuit would spell that violation out-but it's not which makes me think this school, like the one i worked for, is b/c of church/non profit status exempt from some employment laws that are very basic requirements of all other employers).

 

[ForAandA]

That's pretty terrible if that happens.

Sadly, it does happen.

As for the teacher losing her job because she became pregnant before marriage, a simple cluase in the contract ahead of time would of saved the school. As of now, the school is screwed .

 

[Hawks4Realz]

Sadly, it does happen.

As for the teacher losing her job because she became pregnant before marriage, a simple cluase in the contract ahead of time would of saved the school. As of now, the school is screwed .

Disagree. Businesses don't need reasons to terminate, they can do as they please.

 

[joviroxx]

If you teach your kids that rules are rules, then that should apply to the the school too, correct? They should follow the rules (Federal Law) regarding privacy, even if they don't like them.

She is suing for violation of privacy, a rule (law) that the school allegedly broke.

What the teacher did was not breaking the law. Perhaps violating some ethical principles, but not breaking the law. The school allegedly broke the law, hence the lawsuit.

I think she's also suing under discrimination laws and state marriage discrimination laws.

I agree with privacy aspect. They should not have published that information to anyone and the school should be held liable for that.

 

[barkley]

Sadly, it does happen.

As for the teacher losing her job because she became pregnant before marriage, a simple cluase in the contract ahead of time would of saved the school. As of now, the school is screwed .

there was a clause in her application, as a condition of employment.

this is likely why the federal equal employment opportunity commission complaint on the teacher's part was unsuccessful.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

Then she will lose and get nothing. Have fun taking care of that kid without any money.

That is for the courts to decide. Interesting that there is already precedent of the courts rejecting religious school arguments.

The school, despite being a private religiously affiliated institution, is not exempt from federal discrimination laws, Gay said.

"The school is still covered by federal law, in part because they have more than 15 employees," he said. "The courts have constantly rejected arguments when such schools say its 'free exercise' and cite the First Amendment. It's different for church employment, but this teacher was performing essentially secular duties."

The lawsuit requests damages equal to lost wages for the remaining months of the 2009 school year, the 2010 academic year she expected to work and, because the disclosure of personal information caused her suffer, "emotional and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment and anxiety."

 

[Hawks4Realz]

That is for the courts to decide. Interesting that there is already precedent of the courts rejecting religious school arguments.

The school, despite being a private religiously affiliated institution, is not exempt from federal discrimination laws, Gay said.

"The school is still covered by federal law, in part because they have more than 15 employees," he said. "The courts have constantly rejected arguments when such schools say its 'free exercise' and cite the First Amendment. It's different for church employment, but this teacher was performing essentially secular duties."

The lawsuit requests damages equal to lost wages for the remaining months of the 2009 school year, the 2010 academic year she expected to work and, because the disclosure of personal information caused her suffer, "emotional and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment and anxiety."

That's what Gay says.

 

[kwelch10377]

Disagree. Businesses don't need reasons to terminate, they can do as they please.

That really isn't true. There are laws that vary by state as to whether a business can fire someone without cause. It also can depend on the terms of a contract that was signed or what is spelled out in the employee handbook or paperwork provided to the employee by the employer. You also have to factor in federal laws such as discrimination.

 

[Hawks4Realz]

That really isn't true. There are laws that vary by state as to whether a business can fire someone without cause. It also can depend on the terms of a contract that was signed or what is spelled out in the employee handbook or paperwork provided to the employee by the employer. You also have to factor in federal laws such as discrimination.

Discrimination isn't valid here.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

That's what Gay says.

That is why it will be an interesting case to follow and see what the courts think about it.

Now that the teacher opted out of mediation with the EEOC and chose to go straight to the courts due to EEOC backlog, this will be interesting.

I support the school firing her for not following their values. Even I, a very non-practicing, former Catholic as a child, know that you don't work for a religious organization without being expected to uphold the values of that organization.

However, that does not give the school the right to misuse her medical information, nor does it give them the excuse to violate her privacy by telling the other parents.

I look forward to following the legal debates concerning this issue.

 

[kwelch10377]

Discrimination isn't valid here.

It may not be vaild here, but there rest of what I said is. You made a blanket statement about businesses not needing a reason to terminate which isn't really true. In addition to contractual guidelines there are many state and federal laws out there about terminating people and it is not as simple in every state to go up to someone and say "yeah I think I am going to fire you today."

 

[Mickey's Minion]

Discrimination isn't valid here.

Again, for the courts to decide.

 

[barkley]

That is for the courts to decide. Interesting that there is already precedent of the courts rejecting religious school arguments.

The school, despite being a private religiously affiliated institution, is not exempt from federal discrimination laws, Gay said.

"The school is still covered by federal law, in part because they have more than 15 employees," he said. "The courts have constantly rejected arguments when such schools say its 'free exercise' and cite the First Amendment. It's different for church employment, but this teacher was performing essentially secular duties."

The lawsuit requests damages equal to lost wages for the remaining months of the 2009 school year, the 2010 academic year she expected to work and, because the disclosure of personal information caused her suffer, "emotional and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment and anxiety."

i think this lawyer is going to find it hard to prove that a christian school teacher was doing "essentially secular duties" that somehow exempt them from the church employment.

a cornerstone of teaching in a christian school is teaching and modeling that's school's/faith's practices. it can be incorporated into all aspects of teaching-including the use of textbooks and teaching materials that are purchased to promote the faith (dh attends a christian school and he gets identical curriculum to his same grade public school peers but in text books the same publishers produce that has a christian theme to them).

a janitor, food services or other non teaching staff member might be able to pursue this legal avenue but a christian school teacher saying she was secular in the performance of her job-to me that is not a valid argument.

 

[crashbb]

However, that does not give the school the right to misuse her medical information, nor does it give them the excuse to violate her privacy by telling the other parents.

I'm quoting you, since you were the last person to make such a comment.

I understand privacy laws and I'm not totally sure of the timing of events here BUT -

Once the teacher took this public (and announced her pregnancy on shows such as The Today Show) can the school really be sued for violation of privacy?

As I said, I'm not clear about the timing of things, so it may be a moot question in this specific instance, but some of the comments here just made me think of it.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

It may not be vaild here, but there rest of what I said is. You made a blanket statement about businesses not needing a reason to terminate which isn't really true. In addition to contractual guidelines there are many state and federal laws out there about terminating people and it is not as simple in every state to go up to someone and say "yeah I think I am going to fire you today."

Actually, in most states, you can terminate any employee at any time and offer no reason - contract or not.