Unwed, Pregnant, fired as Catholic school teacher, SUE!

Oh, I have to add in this piece of stupidity found at the end of the original news article:

---

A similar case was brought in 2003 when the unmarried director of an after-school program for Catholic Charities of Buffalo became pregnant. She was demoted and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that the charity violated anti-discrimination laws.

---

What a complete crock. That EEOC should have been cleared out on the spot. Again, please explain to me how one stupid individual's rights override the contract that had to have been signed for the position she went to work for?!? When you work for an employer, they set rules. Especially when you work for a Church organization. Their rules are "set by a higher authority" and "man's law" should not be overriding "church law" just because we don't think that's how things should be handled.

If you want to work for a place that requires certain morals, then you know the rules going in. You don't go and obviously violate those rules and then complain about it after, and when you do complain, you shouldn't be winning your cases. They should be laughed out of the court straight away.


Personally I hope the teacher referenced above wins her case, and then I hope that the school system takes the case up to the Supreme Court level where the teacher gets slapped back to her senses. The same for the employee of Catholic Charities. Let one of courts remind the rest that a contract is a contract, and that idiots like the NYwithoutaCLUE, AwithoutaCLUE and the EEOC are idiots once and for all.

I really don' think that men WOULD be treated any differently. Granted, it is easier to spot a pregnant, unwed woman but I haven't seen any evidence put forth that suggests a male teacher caught in extra-marital affairs or premarital sex wouldn't be fired as well.

The only problem I have with it is the church's stance on abortion. I agree with their stance, don't get me wrong, but I think firing a woman who opts to risk her job and keep the baby seems to be giving MORE credence to the idea that she'd have been better off aborting it and hushing the whole thing up.

To me, it would have been a much better plan of action to accept the woman's "sin", and state that in the interest of pro-life ideals she wouldn't be punished.

Very insightful BakerStreet, and on so many levels.

I agree, I don't think the policies in either case are discriminatory against women, it just happens that women are much easier to catch in violation of the policies. If a man is caught, they would most certainly be subject to harsh penalties. If a man was caught and not penalized while a woman was caught and was penalized, then there'd be a case for a discrimination case.

The solution you suggest is what I think the church should be applying also. One of forgiveness, of acceptance for all into the Kingdom of Heaven and all that jazz. If I remember my biblical lore, Jesus himself tried to preach to the poor, downtrodden, and even to the criminals that hung on crosses beside him.

The current church is, in many ways, far removed from those principals. They continue, in my mind, to be about money and a hypocritical buying of a path into eternity. Not wise, and part of the reason that the church doesn't seem to be able to expand it's reach, and can't claim any moral high ground.

I don't think the need to change their stance on abortion at all. But as you stated, and as I believe, they should certainly be showing acceptance of the woman and helping her provide a good christian home for the child, rather than pushing her into other choices that are not right for either her or the child. I'm left to wonder if she had said she was giving the child up for adoption would she have been allowed to continue teaching? If so, then it offers a little wiggle room in the ethical decision that might be made, but not that much. If she is capable of offering a loving home, and financially able to care for the child, then why should the child not stay with her?

I go to a small Catholic School, and one of my classmates became pregnant, and she was elected to Student Council the year before to serve that year, and the school asked her to step down due to moral issues, which I think is a big load of crap.

he current church is, in many ways, far removed from those principals. They continue, in my mind, to be about money and a hypocritical buying of a path into eternity. Not wise, and part of the reason that the church doesn't seem to be able to expand it's reach, and can't claim any moral high ground.

OK, as I have posted at least twice before, and as Dr. Guy has, there is a lot of Catholic prejudice going on. This isn't the "church" that is making the teacher quit, it is the school. Even though most diocese have a large hand in the Catholic schools in their area, they rarely have any connection with discipline, who is hired, and much of the logistics of the schools.

hey continue, in my mind, to be about money and a hypocritical buying of a path into eternity. Not wise, and part of the reason that the church doesn't seem to be able to expand it's reach, and can't claim any moral high ground.

How so? In what way are they more concerned about money than the saving of souls?

I think it was wrong that they fired the teacher, even though she signed the contract, because the reason for a Catholic school is to promote the fundamentals of Christianity. I do agree that sueing the school is... I cannot even think of an appropriate work to describe the stupidity of it.

Just my thoughts.

If "thou shalt not get knocked up" was part of the initial contract, then by any means she should get canned. If that clause wasn't in there...well...that's a whole other issue.

If "thou shalt not get knocked up" was part of the initial contract, then by any means she should get canned.

If this contract is anything like BYU's Honor Code, then yes, it was in the contract. Brigham Young Univ.'s honor code forbids the students from drinking, smoking, cohabiting with the opposite sex, and conducting themselves in such a way that would contradict the principles and teachings of the Mormon church. It also includes dress and grooming standards and oh yeah, academic honesty.
If a student breaks the honor code, which document they freely and knowingly sign before enrolling at BYU, they set themselves up for the consequences. I always wondered why Jim McMahon (quite the party animal - not a Mormon) went to BYU in the first place. The honor code always chafed against his chosen frat-boy lifestyle.
So chances are, a similar contract was entered into with this girl. And if she went and got herself knocked up, then she by the terms of her contract with the school, she should be canned.
Yes, it's different for a man. There's no outward sign of sexual promiscuity on a man. Not discrimination, just biology. Growing stomachs are not always a sign of pregnancy (thank you Thanksgiving!) and except for the smile on his face, there's no way to tell he's had sex.

I have no real problem with them firing her, just how was her contract worded? You see people with contracts doing very bad things, assault, drug dealing, whoring around, etc. but when the boss wants to discipline the employee, they have major problems if specific behaviours are not spelled out in the contract.
Dave,
Good thing I have no desire to go to BYU then...

This reminds me of Absence of Malice.  I dont agree with the policies of the Catholic school, but think the ACLU is way off base.  If the woman had an abortion (a much worse sin in the eyes of the Church), like the man, no one would have ever known. Unless some stupid reporter did not know shit and published the fact.

What the Americans Without A Clue (and some here on JU) and this woman are missing is that her pregnancy isn't the issue at all. The issue is entirely one of breach of contract by the teacher.

The Catholic Church is not being unduly harsh on her, in fact they wish her nothing but happiness for her and her child. However, what amount of standards can that school claim if they allow a teacher to break her contract and continue teaching?

She violated the terms of her contract. I have to wonder, if the school or the Catholic church were the violating parties, and sued the woman, would the NYCLU (or anyone else) be defending the Catholic church's lawsuit?

I too wish this woman and her child happiness. There are many places that have a teaching shortage. I hope the teacher gets a job in one of those school systems, continues her teaching career and puts this situation behind her.

I also doubt the vultures in the NYCLU will give her a moment's rest if she chooses to do so.

Hypocritical and un-Christlike? Yes.

Illegal? No.

It sucks, and I think it's wrong, but I also recognize that it's within their rights. I feel for that woman, but she's not the only woman who has ever been pregnant, jobless, and without insurance. At least she has the education necessary to find a good paying job.

Hypocritical and un-Christlike? Yes.

I wont go so far as to say hypocritical. It is a stated an over policy. But Yes, un-christlike. And I dont like it either